Pitfalls in patch testing.

D Elston; A Licata; E Rudner; K Trotter

doi:10.1053/ajcd.2000.8845

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11012008

Pitfalls in patch testing.

D Elston·A Licata·E Rudner·K Trotter

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Patch testing is an invaluable diagnostic tool in the evaluation of allergic contact dermatitis. While TrueTest has simplified the technique for many practitioners, there remains potential for error. We asked 4 experts to describe their approach to several dilemmas encountered in patch testing. Their responses will be helpful to both the veteran and tyro.

Explore related subjects

Bias Climate Dermatitis, Allergic Contact False Negative Reactions False Positive Reactions Humans Patch Tests Reproducibility of Results Time Factors Journal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

D Elston, A Licata, E Rudner, K Trotter. 2000. Pitfalls in patch testing.. https://doi.org/10.1053/ajcd.2000.8845

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 ± 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias↗

PubMed2001

Reported participation in case-control studies: changes over time.

There is concern that participation in case-control studies has declined. To address this question, the author and colleagues reviewed data from 82 US and Canadian case-control studies published in epidemiologic journals during two periods: 1988-1990 and 1997-January 1999. The median year of data collection, which ranged from 1972 to 1996, was the primary independent variable. Reported response among both cases and controls remained constant over this time period. The regression coefficients (beta) were small: For each year, there was a change of 0.15 percentage points for cases (p = 0.56) and -0.16 percentage points for controls (p = 0.54). Possible confounders included the location where the study had been conducted and, for cases, the disease under study (cancer vs. others). After adjustment for these factors in case groups, there was still no association between year of data collection and response: For each year, there was a change of -0.20 percentage points (p = 0.43). After adjustment of results for study location among controls, there was a moderate decline over time: For each year, there was a change of -0.44 percentage points (p = 0.12). Overall, reported response in more recent studies was similar to that in earlier studies; for control groups, this may reflect changes in locations where the studies were conducted.

Bias↗

PubMed2001

An evaluation of phase I clinical trial designs in the continuous dose-response setting.

Both traditional phase I designs and the increasingly popular continual reassessment method (CRM) designs select an estimate of maximum tolerable dose (MTD) from among a set of prespecified dose levels. Although CRM designs use an implied dose-response model to select the next dose level, in general it is neither assumed nor necessary that this model be tied to the actual dose of a drug. In contrast, in our two-stage design the fitting of a dose-response model after data have been collected is a necessary feature of the design, and the MTD is not constrained to be one of the prespecified dose levels. We conducted a simulation study to evaluate the performance of the two-stage design, two likelihood-based CRM designs, and two traditional designs in estimating the MTD in situations where one assumes that an explicit dose-response model exists. Under a wide variety of dose-response settings, we examined the bias and precision of estimates, and the fraction of estimates that were extremely high or low. We also studied the effect of adding a model fitting step at the end of a traditional design or a CRM design. The best performance was achieved using the two-stage and CRM designs. Although the CRM designs generally had smaller bias, the two-stage design yielded equal or somewhat smaller precision in some cases. The addition of a model-fitting step slightly improved the precision of the CRM estimates and decreased the percentage of extreme estimates. Allowing interpolation between doses for updating during CRM did not improve overall performance.

Bias↗