Swedish Multicenter Study with TRUE Test, Panel 2

Stenberg, Berndt; Billberg, K.; Nordin, L.; Pettersson, Lars; Ruhnek-Forsbeck, M; Sundberg, Karin; Swanbeck, G; Svensson, Louise; Wahlberg, Jan E.; Widström, Lena; Wrangsjö, Karin

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-74299-6_102

Cited by 11 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The comparative multicentre studies with TRUE Test™ and Finn Chambers™ indicate proximity between limits of weak sensitization and irritancy with nickel sulfate, potassium dichromate, cobalt chloride, balsam of Peru (Myroxylon pereirae resin), fragrance mix, carba mix and thimerosal (19, 20). In addition, some allergens such as lanolin alcohol and cobalt chloride frequently produce doubtful and irrelevant reactions (20, 21, 67, 68).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reproducibility of patch test results: a concurrent right‐versus‐left study using TRUE Test™

Ale

Maibach

2004

Contact Dermatitis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wide variations in the reproducibility rate of positive patch test responses have been reported. We hypothesized that a major source of non-reproducibility resides in the methodological pitfalls of routine patch testing. Simultaneous duplicate patch testing on opposite sides of the upper back was performed on 500 consecutive patients, using the TRUE Test system consisting of 2 panels, each one containing 12 standard allergens. A rigorous methodological design was applied and relevance was assessed for all discordant patch test reactions. A total of 435 positive patch test reactions were observed either on one or both sides in 289 patients (58.8%). Of these, 22 (5%) were discordant, i.e. interpreted as positive allergic on one side whilst negative or doubtful on the opposite side. The allergens responsible for discordant reactions were nickel sulfate (4 patients), cobalt chloride (3), lanolin alcohol (3), fragrance mix (2), carba mix (2), thiuram mix (2), colophonium (1), potassium dichromate (1), p-phenylenediamine (1), formaldehyde (1), balsam of Peru (Myroxylon pereirae resin) (1) and thimerosal (1). Of the 19 (4%) patients with discordant patch test reactions, the allergen was deemed to be of definite present or past relevance in 9 patients (1.8% of the total and 3.1% of all patients with positive patch test reactions) and of possible relevance in a further 2 patients. These data suggest that patch testing is a reasonably reproducible procedure as long as methodological error is minimized.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This test has been pharmaceutically optimized concerning stability, solubility and bioavailability. The dose has been determined by dose-response studies and the amount per unit area standardized (14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reproducibility of patch test results: a concurrent right‐versus‐left study using TRUE Test™

Ale

Maibach

2004

Contact Dermatitis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These results imply that the bioavailability of allergens in TRUE Test ® is similar to that in Finn Chambers ® , in spite of the lower concentrations. When TRUE Test ® panel II was introduced, the concentration of PTBP-FR was 0.040 mg/cm 2 (19,20). At the time of our study, the concentration of PTBP-FR had been increased to 0.050 mg/cm 2 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Is p‐tert‐butylphenol‐formaldehyde resin (PTBP‐FR) in TRUE Test® (Mekos test) sensitizing the tested patients?

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The reliability and the reproducibility of the TT has previously been investigated and confirmed in Swedish multicenter studies [7,8], in European multicenter studies [9,10], and by groups of Authors until recently [11]. This study was performed to further evaluate the EPI, RPT and TT in clinical practice and to investigate the correspondence between these ready-to-apply methods and standard allergens tested with FC.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Italian multicenter study⋆ on Epiquick^®, Rapid Patch Test^® and TRUE Test^TM

Ayala¹,

Balato²,

Lembo³

et al. 1994

Acad Dermatol Venereol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using 3 different ready-to-apply patch test systems (Epiquick® = EPI; Rapid Patch Test® = RPT; TRUE Test^"^ = TT), 316 patients sensitive to at least one allergen were studied in order to investigate the reproducibility of these tests in comparison with the Finn Chamber *(FC) technique. Each patient was tested with a different ready-to-use system. Each test was compared to the same allergen applied with FC to either side of the upper back. Comparisons were made using EPI, RPT, and TT in 93 (183 tests), 119 (262 tests), and 104 (242 tests) patients respectively. When a positive test result occurred on only one side of the back, the concordance was defined as negative. Similarly, doubtful reactions on either side corresponding to positive or negative results were considered as non concordant. The concordance of positive reactions was 80.9% between the EPI and the FC technique, 77.5% between the RPT and the FC technique, and 72.3% between the TT and the FC technique. The frequency of questionable (-F?) and irritant reactions (IR) was about the same for the different tests. Nevertheless, when comparing the positive reactions vs + ?, IR, or negative reactions in paired tests, positive results were more frequently obtained with the FC technique. Our data suggest that the standard method with FC allows a better detection of contact allergy than the new ready-to-use systems tested in this study.

show abstract

Swedish Multicenter Study with TRUE Test, Panel 2

Cited by 11 publications

References 8 publications

Reproducibility of patch test results: a concurrent right‐versus‐left study using TRUE Test™

Reproducibility of patch test results: a concurrent right‐versus‐left study using TRUE Test™

Is p‐tert‐butylphenol‐formaldehyde resin (PTBP‐FR) in TRUE Test® (Mekos test) sensitizing the tested patients?

Italian multicenter study⋆ on Epiquick^®, Rapid Patch Test^® and TRUE Test^TM

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Swedish Multicenter Study with TRUE Test, Panel 2

Cited by 11 publications

References 8 publications

Reproducibility of patch test results: a concurrent right‐versus‐left study using TRUE Test™

Reproducibility of patch test results: a concurrent right‐versus‐left study using TRUE Test™

Is p‐tert‐butylphenol‐formaldehyde resin (PTBP‐FR) in TRUE Test® (Mekos test) sensitizing the tested patients?

Italian multicenter study⋆ on Epiquick®, Rapid Patch Test® and TRUE TestTM

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Italian multicenter study⋆ on Epiquick^®, Rapid Patch Test^® and TRUE Test^TM