Premium
Macro‐video documentation patch tests
Author(s) -
Schuster Christian,
Kränke Birger,
SzolarPlatzer Christiane,
Aberer Werner
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
contact dermatitis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.524
H-Index - 96
eISSN - 1600-0536
pISSN - 0105-1873
DOI - 10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00457.x
Subject(s) - patch test , patch testing , dermatology , test (biology) , documentation , medicine , contact dermatitis , chemistry , surgery , allergy , immunology , computer science , paleontology , biology , programming language
An unequivocal distinction between allergic and irritant patch test reactions is often difficult with patch tests. This study was designed to evaluate the worth of video‐macro camera documentation for differentiation between allergic and irritant test reactions and to investigate whether there are characteristic clinical differences in patch test responses between metal salts and fragrances. Patch testing was performed with nickel sulfate, fragrance mix and an irritant, sodium lauryl sulfate 1% aq., on the upper back of 82 patients, with evaluation and computer‐aided video documentation after 48 and 72 hr. No reliable clinicomorphological criterion was found for assessing a weak patch test reaction as being definitely allergic. Even characteristic papules and vesicles were not regularly found in allergic reactions. However, unlike fragrance mix, patch test reactions to nickel sulfate were characteristic in that they showed a heterogeneous spread and an association with hair follicle openings, independent of reaction intensity. Evaluation based on additional computer‐aided video‐macro camera documentation did not add further advantage for the differentiation of allergic and irritant reactions. But well‐defined clinicomorphological features and reaction patterns to single test substances or even whole substance categories could be helpful additional criteria for evaluating patch test responses in clinical practice.