Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patch Testing

  • Chapter
Textbook of Contact Dermatitis

Abstract

Patch testing is a well-established method of diagnosing allergic contact dermatitis — a delayed type of hypersensitivity (type IV reaction). Patients with a history and clinical picture of contact dermatitis are reexposed to the suspected allergens under controlled conditions to verify the diagnosis. Besides testing patients with hand, arm, face or leg eczema (stasis dermatitis), testing of other types of eczema (atopic, seborrhoeic dermatitis, nummular eczema), including patients with chronic psoriasis, vulval disorders or drug reactions (Chap. 23), is sometimes indicated, especially when the dermatologist suspects contact allergy to prescribed topical medicaments and their vehicles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jadassohn J (1896) Zur Kenntnis der medikamentösen Dermatosen, Verhandlungen der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft. Fünfter Congress, Raz, 1895. Braunmuller, Vienna, p 106

    Google Scholar 

  2. Foussereau J (1984) History of epicutaneous testing: the blotting-paper and other methods. Contact Dermatitis 11: 219–223

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fischer TI, Hansen J, Kreilgärd B, Maibach HI (1989) The science of patch test standardization. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am 9: 417–443

    Google Scholar 

  4. Belsito DV, Storrs FJ, Taylor JS, Marks JG Jr, Adams RM, Rietschel RL, Jordan WP, Emmett EA (1992) Reproducibility of patch tests: a United States multicenter study. Am J Contact Dermatitis 3: 193–200

    Google Scholar 

  5. Breit R, Agathos M (1992) Qualitätskontrolle der Epikutantestung - Reproduzierbarkeit im Rechts-Links-Vergleich. Hautarzt 43: 417–421

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bousema MT, Geursen AM, van Joost T (1991) High reproducibility of patch tests. J Am Acad Dermatol 24: 322–323

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lachapelle JM, Antoine JL (1989) Problems raised by the simultaneous reproducibility of positive allergic patch test reactions in man. J Am Acad Dermatol 21: 850–854

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Machâckovâ J, Seda 0 (1991) Reproducibility of patch tests. J Am Acad Dermatol 25: 732–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lindelöf B (1990) A left versus right side comparative study of Finn Chamber“ patch tests in 220 consecutive patients. Contact Dertmatitis 22: 288–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Stransky L, Krasteva M (1992) A left versus right side comparative study of Finn Chamber patch tests in consecutive patients with contact sensitization. Dermatosen 40: 158–159

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brasch J, Henseler T, Aberer W, Bäuerle G, Frosch PJ, Fuchs T, Fünfstück V, Kaiser G, Lischka GG, Pilz B, Sauer C, Schaller J, Scheuer B, Szliska C (1994) Reproducibility of patch tests. A multicenter study of synchronous left-versus right-sided patch tests by the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group. J Am Acad Dermatol 31: 584–591

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fullerton A, Rud Andersen J, Hoelgaard A, Menné T (1986) Permeation of nickel salts through human skin in vitro. Contact Dermatitis 15: 173–177

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Malten KE, Nater JP, van Ketel WG. (1976) Patch testing guidelines. Dekker and van de Vegt, Nijmegen

    Google Scholar 

  14. Brasch J, Szliska C, Grabbe J (1997) More positive patch test reactions with larger test chambers? Contact Dermatitis 37: 118–120

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Chemotechnique Diagnostics (1998) Patch test allergens. Product catalogue. Malmö, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  16. Trolab Hermal (1998) Patch test allergens. Hermal, Reinbek

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fregert S (1985) Publication of allergens. Contact Dermatitis 12: 123–124

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Dooms-Goossens A, Degreff H (1983) Contact allergy to petrolatums I. Sensitizing capacity of different brands of yellow and white petrolatums. Contact Dermatitis 9: 175–185

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bruze M (1984) Use of buffer solutions for patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 10: 267–269

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Fischer T, Maibach H (1989) Easier patch testing with TRUE test. J Am Acad Dermatol 20: 447–453

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Magnusson B, Blohm S-G, Fregert S, Hjorth N, Hovding G, Pirilä V, Skog E (1966) Routine patch testing II. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 46: 153–158

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Benezra C, Andanson J, Chabeau C, Ducombs G, Foussereau J, Lachapelle JM, Lacroix M, Martin P (1978) Concentrations of patch test allergens: are we comparing the same things? Contact Dermatitis 4: 103–105

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bruze M (1986) Sensitizing capacity of 2–methylol phenol, 4–methylol phenol and 2,4,6trimethylol phenol in the Guinea Pig. Contact Dermatitis 14: 32–38

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Wall LM, Calnan CD (1980) Occupational nickel dermatitis in the electroforming industry. Contact Dermatitis 6: 414–420

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Wahlberg JE. (1996) Nickel: the search for alternative, optimal and non-irritant patch test preparations. Assessments based on laser Doppler flowmetry. Skin Res Technol 2: 136–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tokumura F, Ohyama K, Fujisawa H, Matsuda T, Kitazaki Y (1997) Conformability and irritancy of adhesive tapes on the skin. Contact Dermatitis 37: 173–178

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Blohm S-G (1960) Storage of epicutaneous test solutions. I. Proposed new type of drop bottle. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 6: 457–459

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pirilä V (1989) Droplet bottle. Personal communication

    Google Scholar 

  29. Fischer T, Maibach HI (1986) Patch testing in allergic contact dermatitis: an update. Semin Dermatol 5: 214–224

    Google Scholar 

  30. Fregert S (1981) Manual of contact dermatitis, 2nd edn. Munksgaard, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  31. Fisher AA (1986) Contact Dermatitis, 3rd edn. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  32. Wahlberg JE, Maibach HI (1980) Nonanoic acid irritation - a positive control at routine patch testing? Contact Dermatitis 6: 128–130

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Wahlberg JE, Wrangsjö K, Hietasalo A (1985) Skin irritancy from nonanoic acid. Contact Dermatitis 13: 266–269

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Gollhausen R, Przybilla B, Ring J (1989) Reproducibility of patch test results: comparison of True test and Finn Chamber test. In: Frosch PJ, Dooms-Goossens A, Lachapelle JM, Rycroft RJ, Scheper RJ (eds) Current topics in contact dermatitis. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 524–529

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Lachapelle J-M, Bruynzeel DP, Ducombs G, Hannuksela M, Ring J, White IR, Wilkinson J, Fischer T, Billberg K (1988) European multicenter study of the True test’. Contact Dermatitis 19: 91–97

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Ruhnek-Forsbeck M, Fischer T, Meding B, Pettersson L, Stenberg B, Strand A, Sundberg K, Svensson L, Wahlberg JE, Widström L, Wrangsjö K, Billberg K (1988) Comparative multicenter study with True test“ and Finn Chamber® patch test methods in eight Swedish hospitals. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 68: 123–128

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Stenberg B, Billberg K, Fischer T, Nordin L, Pettersson L, Ruhnek-Forsbeck M, Sundberg K, Swanbeck G, Svensson L, Wahlberg JE, Widström L, Wrangsjö K (1989) Swedisth multicenter study with True test, panel 2. In: Frosch PJ, Dooms-Goossens A, Lachapelle JM, Rycroft RJ, Scheper RJ (eds) Current topics in contact dermatitis. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 518–523

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Wilkinson JD, Bruynzeel DP, Ducombs G, Frosch PJ, Gunnarsson Y, Hannuksela M, Ring J, Shaw S, White IR (1990) European multicenter study of TRUE test, panel 2. Contact Dermatitis 22: 218–225

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. de Groot AC (1994) Patch testing. Test concentrations and vehicles for 3700 chemicals, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  40. de Groot AC (1986) Patch Testing. Test concentrations and vehicles for 2800 allergens. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  41. Cronin E (1986) Some practical supplementary trays for special occupations. Semin Dermatol 5: 243–248

    Google Scholar 

  42. Cronin E (1980) Contact Dermatitis. Churchill Livingstone, London

    Google Scholar 

  43. Adams RM (1990) Occupational skin disease, 2nd edn. Saunders, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  44. Foussereau J, Benezra C, Maibach HI (1982) Occupational contact dermatitis. Clinical and chemical aspects. Munksgaard, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  45. Hjorth N (1961) Eczematous allergy to balsams. Allied perfumes and flavouring agents. Munksgaard, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  46. Takano S, Yamanaka M, Okamoto K, Saito F (1983) Allergens of lanolin: parts I and II. J Soc Cosmet Chem 34: 99–125

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Fregert S, Dahlquist I, Trulsson L (1984) An attempt to isolate and identify allergens in lanolin. Contacts Dermatitis 10: 16–19

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Karlberg A-T (1988) Contact allergy to colophony. Chemical identifications of allergens, sensitization experiments and clinical experiences. Thesis, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hansson C, Agrup G (1993) Stability of the mercaptobenzothiazole compounds. Contact Dermatitis 28: 29–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Björkner B, Bruze M, Dahlquist I, Fregert S, Gruvberger B, Persson K (1986) Contact allergy to the preservative Kathon® CG. Contact Dermatitis 14: 85–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. de Groot AC (1988) Adverse reactions to cosmetics. Thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  52. Andersen KE, Burrows D, Cronin, Dooms-Goossens A, Rycroft RJG, White IR (1988) Recommended changes to standard series. Contact Dermatitis 19: 389–390

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Wahlberg JE (1998) Identification of new allergens and non-irritant patch test preparations. Contact Dermatitis 39: 155–156

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Bryld LE, Agner T, Rastogi SC, Menné T (1997) Idopropynyl butylcarbamate: a new contact allergen. Contact Dermatitis 36: 156–158

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Bruynzeel DP, Andersen KE, Camarasa JG, Lachapelle J-M, Menné T, White IR (1995) The Euoropean standard series. Contact Dermatitis 33: 145–148

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Lachapelle J-M, Ale SI, Freeman S, Frosch PJ, Goh CL, Hannuksela M, Hayakawa R, Maibach HI, Wahlberg JE (1997) Proposal for a revised international standard series of patch tests. Contact Dermatitis 36: 121–123

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Kalimo K, Lammintausta K (1984) 24 and 48 h allergen exposure in patch testing. Compar- ative study with 11 common contact allergens and NiC12. Contact Dermatitis 10: 25–29

    Google Scholar 

  58. Brasch J, Geier J, Henseler T (1995) Evaluation of patch test results by use of the reaction index. An analysis data recorded by the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis 33: 375–380

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Manuskiatti W, Maibach HI (1996) 1– versus 2– and 3–day diagnostic patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 35: 197–200

    Google Scholar 

  60. Bruze M (1988) Patch testing with nickel sulphate under occlusion for five hours. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 68: 361–364

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Kosann MK, Brancaccio RR, Shupack JL, Franks AG Jr, Cohen DE (1998) Six-hour versus 48–hour patch testing with varying concentrations of potassium dichromate. Am J Contact Dermatitis 9: 92–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. McFadden JP, Wakelin SH, Holloway DB, Basketter DA (1998) The effect of patch duration on the elicitation of para-phenylenediamine contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis 39: 79–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Rietschel R, Adams RM, Maibach HI, Storrs FJ, Rosenthal LE, (1988) The case for patch test readings beyond day 2. J Am Acad Dermatol 18: 42–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. MacFarlane AW, Curley RK, Graham RM, Lewis-Jones MS, King CM (1989) Delayed patch test reactions at days 7 and 9. Contact Dermatitis 20: 127–132

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Wahlberg JE, Wahlberg ENG (1987) Quantification of skin blood flow at patch test sites. Contact Dermatitis 17: 229–233

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Saino M, Rivara P, Guarrera M (1995) Reading patch tests on day 7. Contact Dermatitis 32: 312

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Bygum A, Andersen KE (1998) Persistent reactions after patch testing with TRUE TestTM panels 1 and 2. Contact Dermatitis 38: 218–220

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Uter WJC, Geier J, Schnuch A (1996) Good clinical practice in patch testing: readings beyond day 2 are necessary: a confirmatory analysis. Am J Contact Dermatitis 7: 231–237

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Shehade SA, Beck MH, Hiller VF (1991) Epidemiological survey of standard series patch test results and observations on day 2 and day 4 readings. Contact Dermatitis 24: 119–122

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Todd DJ, Handley J, Metwali M, Allen GE, Burrows D (1996) Day 4 is better than day 3 for a single patch test reading. Contact Dermatitis 34: 402–404

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Lachapelle JM, Tennstedt D, Fyad A, Masmoudi ML, Nouaigui H (1988) Ring-shaped positive allergic patch test reactions to allergens in liquid vehicles. Contact Dermatitis 18: 234–236

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Scheynius A, Fischer T (1986) Phenotypic difference between allergic and irritant patch test reactions in man. Contact Dermatitis 14: 297–302

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Bruze M, Isaksson M, Edman B, Björkner B, Fregert S, Möller H (1995) A study on expert reading of patch test reactions: inter-individual accordance. Contact Dermatitis 32: 331–337

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Lachapelle J-M (1997) A proposed relevance scoring system for positive allergic patch test reactions: practical implications and limitations. Contact Dermatitis 36: 39–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Rycroft RJG (1986) False reactions to nonstandard patch tests. Semin Dermatol 5: 225–230

    Google Scholar 

  76. Björnberg A (1968) Skin reactions to primary irritants in patients with hand eczema. An investigation with matched controls. Thesis, Sahlgrenska Sjukhuset, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  77. Andersen KE, Lidén C, Hansen J, Volund A (1993) Dose-respons testing with nickel sulphate using the TRUE test in nickel-sensitive individuals. Multiple nickel sulphate patch-test reactions do not cause an `angry back’. Br J Dermatol 129: 50–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Bruynzeel DP, Maibach HI (1990) Excited skin syndrom and the hyporeactive state: current status. In: Menné T, Maibach HI (eds) Exogenous dermatoses: environmental dermatitis. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 141–150

    Google Scholar 

  79. Kelett JK, King CM, Beck MH (1986) Compound allergy to medicaments. Contact Dermatitis 14: 45–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Aldridge RD, Main RA (1984) Contact dermatitis due to a combined miconazole nitrate/hydrocortisone cream. Contact Dermatitis 10: 58–60

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  81. Smeenk G, Kerckhoffs HPM, Schreurs PHM (1987) Contact allergy to a reaction product in Hirudoid® cream: an example of compound allergy. Br J Dermatol 116: 223–231

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Bashir SJ, Maibach HI (1997) Compound allergy. An overview. Contact Dermatitis 36: 179–183

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. McLelland J, Shuster S, Matthews JNS (1991) “Irritants” increase the response to an allergen in allergic contact dermatitis. Arch Dermatol 127:1016–1019

    Google Scholar 

  84. McLelland J, Shuster S (1990) Contact dermatitis with negative patch tests. Br J Dermatol 122: 623–630

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Sukanto H, Nater JP, Bleumink E (1981) Influence of topically applied corticosteroids on patch test reactions. Contact Dermatitis 7: 180–185

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  86. O’Quinn SE, Isbell KH (1969) Influence of oral prednisone on eczematous patch test reactions. Arch Dermatol 99: 380–389

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Feuerman E, Levy A (1972) A study of the effect of prednisone and an antihistamine on patch test reactions. Br J Dermatol 86: 68–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  88. Condie MW, Adams RM (1973) Influence of oral prednisone on patch-test reactions to Rhus antigen. Arch Dermatol 107: 540–543

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  89. Lembo G, Presti ML, Balato N, Ayala F, Santoianni P (1985) Influence of cinnarizine on patch test reactions. Contact Dermatitis 13: 341–343

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  90. Motolese A, Ferdani G, Manzini BM, Seidenari S (1995) Echographic evaluation of patch test inhibition by oral antihistamine Contact Dermatitis 32: 251

    Google Scholar 

  91. Aldridge RD, Sewell HF, King G, Thomson AW (1986) Topical cyclosporin A in nickel contact hypersensitivity: results of a preliminary clinical and immunohistochemical investigation. Clin Exp Immunol 66: 582–589

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  92. Nakagawa S, Oka D, Jinno Y, Takei Y, Bang D, Ueki H (1988) Topical application of cyclosporine on guinea pig allergic contact dermatitis. Arch Dermatol 124: 907–910

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  93. Biren CA, Barr RJ, Ganderup GS, Lemus LL, McCullough JL (1989) Topical cyclosporine: effects on allergic contact dermatitis in guinea pigs. Contact Dermatitis 20: 10–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  94. Sjövall P (1988) Ultraviolet radiation and allergic contact dermatitis. An experimental and clinical study. Thesis, University of Lund, Sweden

    Google Scholar 

  95. Lindelöf B, Lidén S, Lagerholm B (1985) The effect of grenz rays on the expression of allergic contact dermatitis in man. Scand J Immunol 21: 463–469

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Ek L, Lindelöf B, Lidén S (1989) The duration of Grenz ray-induced suppression of allergic contact dermatitis and its correlation with the density of Langerhans cells in human epidermis. Clin Exp Dermatol 14: 206–209

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  97. Cruz PD (1996) Effects of UV light on the immune system: answer to five basic questions. Am J Contact Dermatitis 7: 47–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Kanerva L, Estlander T, Jolanki R (1988) Sensitization to patch test acrylates. Contact Dermatitis 18: 10–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Lidén C, Boman A, Hagelthorn G (1982) Flare-up reactions from a chemical used in the film industry. Contact Dermatitis 8: 136–137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Hannuksela M, Salo H (1986) The repeated open application test (ROAT). Contact Dermatitis 14: 221–227

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Hannuksela M (1991) Sensitivity of various skin sites in the repeated open application test. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2: 102–104

    Google Scholar 

  102. Hannuksela A, Niinimäki A, Hannuksela M (1993) Size of the test area does not affect the result of the repeated open application test. Contact Dermatitis 28: 299–300

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Johansen JD,Andersen KE, Rastogi SC, Menné T (1996) Threshold responses in cinnamic-aldehyde-sensitive subjects: results and methodological aspects. Contact Dermatitis 34: 165–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Johansen JD, Andersen KE, Menné T (1996) Quantitiative aspects of isoeugenol contact allergy assessed by use and patch tests. Contact Dermatitis 34: 414–418

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Wahlberg JE, Färm G, Lidén C (1997) Quantification and specificity of the repeated open application test (ROAT). Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 77: 420–424

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  106. Johansen JD, Bruze M, Andersen KE, Frosch PJ, Dreier B, White IR, Rastogi S, Lepoittevin JP, Menné T (1997) The repeated open application test: suggestions for a scale of evaluation. Contact Dermatitis 39: 95–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Flyvholm M-A, Hall BM, Agner T, Tiedemann E, Greenhill P, Vanderveken W, Freeberg FE, Menné T (1997) Threshold for occluded formaldehyde patch test in formaldehyde-sensitive patients. Contact Dermatitis 36: 26–33

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  108. Tupker RA, Schuur J, Coenraads PJ (1997) Irritancy of antiseptics tested by repeated open exposures on the human skin, evaluated by non-invasive methods. Contact Dermatitis 37: 213–217

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  109. Färm G (1998) Repeated open application tests (ROAT) in patients allergic to colophony - evaluated visually and with bioengineering techniques. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 78: 130–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Berardesca E, Maibach HI (1988) Bioengineering and the patch test. Contact Dermatitis 18: 3–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. Staberg B, Klemp P, Serup J (1984) Patch test responses evaluated by cutaneous blood flow measurements. Arch Dermatol 120: 741–743

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Wahlberg JE (1989) Assessment of erythema: a comparison between the naked eye and laser Doppler flowmetry. In: Frosch PJ, Dooms-Goossens A, Lachapelle JM; Rycroft RJ, Scheper RJ (eds) Current topics in contact dermatitis. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 549–553

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  113. Wahlberg JE (1971) Vehicle role of petrolatum. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 51: 129–134

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  114. Vanneste D, Martin P, Lachapelle JM (1980) Comparative study of the density of particles in suspension for patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 6: 197–203

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  115. Fischer T, Maibach HI (1984) Patch test allergens in petrolatum: a reappraisal. Contact Dermatitis 11: 224–228

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  116. Mellström GA, Sommar K, Wahlberg JE (1992) Patch test preparations of metallic mercury under the microscope. Contact Dermatitis 26: 64–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Karlberg A-T, Lidén C (1988) Comparison of colophony patch test preparations. Contact Dermatitis 18: 158–165

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Magnusson B, Hersle K (1966) Patch test methods. III. Influence of adhesive tape on test response. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 46: 275–278

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Jan E. Wahlberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, St. Thomas’s Hospital, SE1 7EH, London, UK

    Richard J. G. Rycroft

  2. Department of Dermatology, Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Niels Andersens Vej 65, 2900, Hellerup, Denmark

    Torkil Menné

  3. Hautklinik der Städtischen Kliniken Dortmund, Abteilung Dermatologie, Universität Witten/Herdecke, Beurhausstraße 40, 44137, Dortmund, Germany

    Peter J. Frosch

  4. Clinique Dermatologique Laboratoire de Dermatochimie, Univ. Louis Pasteur, 1 Place de L’Hôpital, 67091, Strasbourg, France

    Jean-Pierre Lepoittevin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wahlberg, J.E. (2001). Patch Testing. In: Rycroft, R.J.G., Menné, T., Frosch, P.J., Lepoittevin, JP. (eds) Textbook of Contact Dermatitis. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-10302-9_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-10302-9_21

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-10304-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-10302-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation