+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Is electrodermal testing as effective as skin prick tests for diagnosing allergies? A double blind, randomised block design study

Is electrodermal testing as effective as skin prick tests for diagnosing allergies? A double blind, randomised block design study

BMJ 322(7279): 131-134

Objective: To evaluate whether electrodermal testing for environmental allergies can distinguish between volunteers who had previously reacted positively on skin prick tests for allergy to house dust mite or cat dander and volunteers who had reacted negatively to both allergens. Design: Double blind, randomised block design. Setting: A general practice in southern England. Participants: 15 volunteers who had a positive result and 15 volunteers who had a negative result on a previous skin prick test for allergy to house dust mite or cat dander. Intervention: Each participant was tested with 6 items by each of 3 operators of the Vegatest electrodermal testing device in 3 separate sessions (a total of 54 tests per participant). For each participant the 54 items comprised 18 samples each of house dust mite, cat dander, and distilled water, though these were randomly allocated among the operators in each session. A research nurse sat with the participant and operator in all sessions to ensure blinding and adherence to the protocol and to record the outcome of each test. Outcome: The presence or absence of an allergy according to the standard protocol for electrodermal testing. Results: All the non-atopic participants completed all 3 testing sessions (810 individual tests); 774 (95.5%) of the individual tests conducted on the atopic participants complied with the testing protocol. The results of the electrodermal tests did not correlate with those of the skin prick tests. Electrodermal testing could not distinguish between atopic and non-atopic participants. No operator of the Vegatest device was better than any other, and no single participant's atopic status was consistently correctly diagnosed. Conclusion: Electrodermal testing cannot be used to diagnose environmental allergies.

Please choose payment method:

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 010886568

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 11159567

DOI: 10.1136/bmj.322.7279.131

Related references

The effect of montelukast on wheal reactions in skin prick tests A Double-Blind-Placebo-Controlled Randomised Trial. 2013

A double blind, randomized, controlled investigation of electrodermal testing in the diagnosis of allergies. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine 3(3): 241-248, 1997

Diagnosing environmental allergies: Comparison of skin-prick, intradermal, and serum specific immunoglobulin E testing. Allergy and Rhinology 8(2): 53-62, 2017

Comparison of potency of three different skin prick tests in allergic patient: A double-blind randomized trial. 2008

Comparison Of Potency Of Three Different Skin Prick Tests In Allergic Patient: A Double-blind Randomized Trial. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 121(2): S56-S56, 2008

Are skin prick tests really safe? A case of anaphylaxis caused by skin prick testing with inhalant allergens. Allergologia et Immunopathologia 43(2): 215-216, 2016

Skin prick vs intradermal skin testing in children Are skin prick tests alone sufficient?. Journal of Allergy & Clinical Immunology 105(1 part 2): S232-S233, 2000

The effect of montelukast on wheal reactions in skin prick tests: a double-blind-placebo-controlled randomized trial. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 77(10): 1655-1658, 2013

In vivo assessment with prick-to-prick testing and double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge of allergenicity of apple cultivars. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 116(5): 1080-1086, 2005

Immunotherapy with partially purified and standardized tree pollen extracts ii. results of skin prick tests and nasal provocation tests from a three year double blind study of patients treated with pollen extracts either of birch or combinations of alder birch and hazel. Allergy 43(5): 363-369, 1988

Comparative double blind study on cetirizine and terfenadine in skin allergies. Clinical & Experimental Allergy 20(Suppl. 1): 86, 1990

EAACI position paper: skin prick testing in the diagnosis of occupational type I allergies. Allergy 68(5): 580-584, 2013

The association of asthma, nasal allergies, and positive skin prick tests with obesity, leptin, and adiponectin. Clinical and Experimental Allergy 44(2): 250-260, 2014

Effects of ropivacaine concentration on the spread of sensory block produced by continuous thoracic paravertebral block: a prospective, randomised, controlled, double-blind study. Anaesthesia 69(3): 231-239, 2014

Prevention of pruritus with ethyl-chloride in skin prick test: a double-blind placebo-controlled prospective study. Allergy Asthma and Clinical Immunology 11(1): 25, 2015