The prick test is one of the most common medical methods for diagnosing allergies, and it has been carried out in a similar and laborious manner over many decades. In an attempt to standardize the reading of the test, many researchers have tried to automate the process of measuring the allergic reactions found by developing systems and algorithms based on multiple technologies. This work reviews the techniques for automatic wheal measurement with the aim of pointing out their advantages and disadvantages and the progress in the field. Furthermore, it provides a classification scheme for the different technologies applied. The works discussed herein provide evidence that significant challenges still exist for the development of an automatic wheal measurement system that not only helps allergists in their medical practice but also allows for the standardization of the reading and data exchange. As such, the aim of the work was to serve as guideline for the development of a proper and feasible system.In vivo tests in allergy date back to 1867 when Dr. Charles Blackley applied a porridge of pollen in water on his scratched skin, causing redness, swelling and itching. Later, Schick and Cooke introduced the intracutaneous test. However, it was not until 1950 that Sir Thomas Lewis proposed administering the allergen via the puncture technique (1).From the onset of using skin tests in the field of allergy, scientists have tried to standardize the reactions obtained so that they are comparable regardless of where and how they have been generated. In general, the objective of standardization covers three parts: the puncture device, the allergens and the process (test and diagnosis).Regarding the process, the most commonly used method for detecting allergies is known as the prick test. This method is relatively simple and fast. However, prick test, as it is performed nowadays, has some limitations in its diagnostics accuracy, especially for food allergy diagnosis (2-4). Besides, the analysis and measurement of the size of the wheals that correspond to a positive reaction are performed in a manual and laborious manner, or by means of a qualitative judgement made by the allergist. While some allergists just visually inspect the reaction, or compare it with the histamine wheal, others try to quantitatively measure the geometry of the wheal.In general, two main parameters are used: the mean diameter of the wheal and the area, which shows less variability (5). These results have to be interpreted by the allergist, which can introduce additional variability. It has been shown that experts examining the same contours can arrive at different conclusions (6-8). An automated device would potentially reduce the uncertainties introduced by the reading process, minimizing the variability after the puncture is carried out. As Poulsen et al. (9) stated, the two main sources of uncertainties during the reading process are (i) the drawing of the wheal and (ii) the determination of the area. The variability produced by these factors...