Comparative study of Finn Chambers and T.R.U.E. test methodologies in detecting the relevant allergens inducing contact dermatitis

Suneja, Tina; Belsito, D.

doi:10.1067/mjd.2001.117396

Cited by 39 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The clinical relevance was defined as definite (product used by the patient containing the allergen tested positive), probable (testing could not be performed but a known exposure to a product containing the allergen was present), possible (a possible exposure history to a product known or strongly suspected to contain the allergen was present or a positive test result to a product suspected to contain the allergen). The reactions were considered clinically relevant if any of the above three could be found …”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 83%

Patch testing in patients with suspected cosmetic dermatitis: A retrospective study

Garg

Agarwal

Chander

et al. 2017

J of Cosmetic Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Background Growing use of cosmetics has led to an increase in the incidence of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to cosmetics. Patch testing helps to confirm allergy to cosmetics and pinpoint the exact offending allergens. Aims and Objectives The study aimed to find the frequency of positive patch test reactions in cases with suspected ACD to cosmetics, and the common allergens responsible for it. Methods This is a retrospective record‐based study of 58 patients, with suspected ACD to cosmetics, who had undergone patch testing with Indian standard series and Indian cosmetic and fragrance series from January 2013 to December 2015. Results The majority of patients (60.34%) belonged to the age group of 20‐40 years. The most common site of involvement was face (94.8%) followed by neck (22.4%). The most commonly implicated cosmetics in history were soaps (53.4%), and face creams (24.1%). The most common allergens detected on patch testing were cetrimide (20.7%) and thimerosal (15.5%) followed by paraphenylenediamine (6.9%), and fragrance mix (5.2). Positive allergic reactions were obtained in 2.12% of the patches. Conclusion Most common cosmetic products implicated for causing ACD were face creams, soaps, and hair dyes. The principal culprit allergens were cetrimide and thimerosal.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 83%

Patch testing in patients with suspected cosmetic dermatitis: A retrospective study

Garg

Agarwal

Chander

et al. 2017

J of Cosmetic Dermatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…found the Finn Chamber ® test to have 37.9% non‐reproducibility compared to 17.9% for the TRUE Test TM (13). However, a recent study suggests that Finn Chamber ® patch testing is superior to the TRUE Test TM in detecting relevant contact allergens (14).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Audit of Finn Chamber^® patch test preparation

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reproducibility of patch test reactions is an important aspect of patch testing. Thin layer rapid use epicutaneous tests (TRUE Test) are preloaded with allergen, whereas Finn Chambers are empty discs that have allergen applied from a syringe. The amount of allergen applied to each Finn Chamber is therefore potentially variable depending on technique. This may increase the risk of non-reproducibility of reactions. We have performed an audit of patch test preparation in our department looking at weight variation of both individual Finn Chambers and 3 completed panels before and after allergen application. We found that the variance in weight was not significant for 2 of the 3 panels and single Finn Chambers with allergen in petrolatum. The variance in weight was significant for single Finn Chambers with allergen in solution and the third panel, which contains an allergen in solution. The clinical significance of these results is unclear.

show abstract

“…Larger test sites tend to more frequently result in positive reactions than smaller areas exposed to the same allergen concentration. Indeed, it has been shown that different test systems may lead to somewhat different test results, even when using identical allergen concentrations [97][98][99][100][101][102][103].…”

Section: Strong Consensus (100 %)mentioning

confidence: 99%

S3 guidelines: Epicutaneous patch testing with contact allergens and drugs – Short version, Part 1

Mahler

Nast

Bauer

et al. 2019

J Deutsche Derma Gesell

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Epicutaneous patch testing is the diagnostic standard for the detection of allergic contact dermatitis. The present guidelines are aimed at residents and board‐certified physicians in the fields of dermatology and allergology as well as other medical specialties involved in establishing the indication for patch testing and its execution in patients with contact dermatitis and other forms of delayed‐type hypersensitivity. The target audience also includes other health care providers and insurance funds. Based on a systematic literature search and a formal consensus process (S3), the guidelines were developed by dermatologists in collaboration with pediatricians, occupational medicine physicians, nursing staff as well as patient representatives. The systematic methodological approach and appraisal of evidence upon which the recommendations are based are outlined in a separate method report that also contains evidence tables. The guidelines address general aspects of patch testing as well as medicolegal issues. The recommendations given relate to topics such as the indication for patch testing, informed patient consent, as well as the choice of test substances, test chambers and test site, duration of exposure, reading times and interpretation of test reactions. Furthermore, recommendations are provided with respect to endogenous and exogenous factors, specific patient groups (children, pregnant women, immunosuppressed individuals) as well as possible risks and adverse events associated with patch testing using contact allergens. Note: This publication is part 1 of the short version of the S3 guidelines for “Epicutaneous patch testing using contact allergens and drugs” (registry no. 013 – 018; date: March 20, 2019; valid until December 31, 2021). Part 2 of the short version will be published in the next issue. The long version of these guidelines can be accessed at http://www.awmf.org. The method report is available as online publication (https://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/013-018.html) and contains the evidence tables in its appendix.

show abstract

Comparative study of Finn Chambers and T.R.U.E. test methodologies in detecting the relevant allergens inducing contact dermatitis

Cited by 39 publications

References 8 publications

Patch testing in patients with suspected cosmetic dermatitis: A retrospective study

Patch testing in patients with suspected cosmetic dermatitis: A retrospective study

Audit of Finn Chamber^® patch test preparation

S3 guidelines: Epicutaneous patch testing with contact allergens and drugs – Short version, Part 1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Comparative study of Finn Chambers and T.R.U.E. test methodologies in detecting the relevant allergens inducing contact dermatitis

Cited by 39 publications

References 8 publications

Patch testing in patients with suspected cosmetic dermatitis: A retrospective study

Patch testing in patients with suspected cosmetic dermatitis: A retrospective study

Audit of Finn Chamber® patch test preparation

S3 guidelines: Epicutaneous patch testing with contact allergens and drugs – Short version, Part 1

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Audit of Finn Chamber^® patch test preparation