Literature DB >> 23816800

Optimizing the use of a skin prick test device on children.

Betul Buyuktiryaki1, Umit Murat Sahiner, Erdem Karabulut, Ozlem Cavkaytar, Ayfer Tuncer, Bulent Enis Sekerel.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing skin prick test (SPT) devices have revealed varying results in performance and there is little known about their use on children.
METHODS: We performed 2 complementary studies to test the sensitivity, reproducibility and acceptability of commercially available SPT devices (Stallerpoint, Antony, France) using different application techniques. In the first part, histamine/saline was put on as a drop by use of a vial (V), and in the second part it was transferred from a well with the aid of the test device (W). The techniques were as follows: apply vertical pressure (Stallerpoint-VP or Stallerpoint-WP), apply vertical pressure with 90° clockwise rotation (Stallerpoint-VC or Stallerpoint-WC) and apply vertical pressure with 90° clockwise and counter-clockwise rotations (Stallerpoint-VCC or Stallerpoint-WCC). For comparison, ALK Lancet was used with a technique of 'drop and apply vertical pressure'.
RESULTS: In the first part, sensitivities of the Stallerpoint-VC (96.6%), Stallerpoint-VCC (95.5%) and ALK Lancet (93.2%) techniques were superior (p < 0.001) to the other Stallerpoint-VP and Stallerpoint-WP techniques (76.1 and 46.6%). Intrapatient coefficient of variation (CV) values were 15.0, 18.9, 15.4, 22.4 and 48.5%, respectively. Interpatient CV ranged between 22.8 and 55.1%. In the second part, the Stallerpoint-WC (98.8%), WCC (97.5%) and ALK Lancet (98.8%) techniques yielded high sensitivities, whereas the sensitivity of Stallerpoint-WP (28.7%) was very low. There were false-positive reactions in the Stallerpoint-VCC and WCC techniques.
CONCLUSION: In children, the SPT technique was found to be as important as the testing device. Stallerpoint-VC and WC techniques are reliable, tolerable and comparable with the ALK Lancet technique.
Copyright © 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23816800     DOI: 10.1159/000350788

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Arch Allergy Immunol        ISSN: 1018-2438            Impact factor:   2.749


  5 in total

1.  Evaluation of The Safety and Efficacy of Newly Developed Domestic Allergenic Extracts for Skin Prick Testing.

Authors:  Mohammad Fereidouni; Roya Mahdavi; Sarah Mahmoudzade; Hadis Rezapoor; Alireza Fereidouni; Afsane Bahrami
Journal:  Rep Biochem Mol Biol       Date:  2021-07

Review 2.  Asthma biomarkers in the age of biologics.

Authors:  Harold Kim; Anne K Ellis; David Fischer; Mary Noseworthy; Ron Olivenstein; Kenneth R Chapman; Jason Lee
Journal:  Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol       Date:  2017-11-17       Impact factor: 3.406

3.  Robust automated reading of the skin prick test via 3D imaging and parametric surface fitting.

Authors:  Jesus Pineda; Raul Vargas; Lenny A Romero; Javier Marrugo; Jaime Meneses; Andres G Marrugo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-10-21       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  The Lancet Weight Determines Wheal Diameter in Response to Skin Prick Testing with Histamine.

Authors:  Hjalte H Andersen; Anna Charlotte Lundgaard; Anne S Petersen; Lise E Hauberg; Neha Sharma; Sofie D Hansen; Jesper Elberling; Lars Arendt-Nielsen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-05-23       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Fine-tuning the use of a skin prick test device.

Authors:  Melike Kahveci; Erdem Karabulut; Ozge Soyer; Umit Murat Sahiner; Betul Buyuktiryaki; Bulent Enis Sekerel
Journal:  World Allergy Organ J       Date:  2020-05-08       Impact factor: 4.084

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.