Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10644017

Skin hyporeactivity in relation to patch testing.

A M Koehler·H I Maibach
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

False-negative patch tests are clinically relevant. Skin hyporeactivity has been suggested as one possible cause. Evidence supports that failure to respond to a specific antigen might be due either to a faulty immune response, a defective inflammatory response or both. Thus, skin hyporeactivity may have clinical relevance in routine patch testing. Articles on this topic are infrequent and there is no index keyword for skin hyporeactivity as this phenomenon is poorly defined and investigated. This article summarizes several observations of skin hyporeactivity, reviews theories of possible mechanisms and discusses further consequences.

Explore related subjects

False Negative ReactionsHumansHypersensitivity, DelayedImmune TolerancePatch TestsSkinJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

A M Koehler, H I Maibach. 2000. Skin hyporeactivity in relation to patch testing.. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0536.2000.042001001.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2001

An accurate and precise methodology for routine determination of the false-negative rate of Papanicolaou smear screening.

BACKGROUND: Although the false-negative rate (FNR) is the most important quality control measure for Papanicolaou smear screening, accurate, precise, and feasible methods for determining this value are lacking. METHODS: The author undertook an analysis and review of the literature. RESULTS: The best estimates of the FNR using atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) as a threshold range from 17% to 61%. Sources of error in the accuracy of this measure that must be accounted for include the FNR of the review method, differences in diagnostic thresholds between the original diagnostic method and the review method, and differences in diagnostic accuracy between the original diagnostic method and the review method. Statistically precise (valid to within 10%) measurement of this value in laboratories with an ASCUS+ rate of 7% can be made from interlaboratory rescreening of approximately 1200-1500 randomly selected normal and abnormal slides along with both laboratories rediagnosing without rescreening 300-400 benign cellular change and ASCUS slides to determine the difference in diagnostic threshold. Consensus for each slide is not required with this method. Changing the threshold to low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (best estimate FNR, 14-58%) requires review of significantly more slides to achieve the same statistical level of precision. CONCLUSIONS: Detailed analysis of the sources of error in determining the FNR allow creation of methods that are relatively unbiased, feasible, and testable and whose accuracy and precision can be determined.

False Negative Reactions↗