The Longest Wheal Diameter Is the Optimal Measurement for the Evaluation of Skin Prick TestsKonstantinou G.N.a, b · Bousquet P.-J.c · Zuberbier T.d · Papadopoulos N.G.a
aDepartment of Allergy and Allergy Research Center, Pediatric Hospital “P&A Kiriakou”, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, member of the GA2LEN network, and bDepartment of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 417 NIMTS Army Hospital, Athens, Greece; cExploration des Allergies, Service des Maladies Respiratoires, Hôpital Arnaud de Villeneuve, Montpellier, France; dDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy, Allergie-Centrum-Charité, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, member of the GA2LEN network, Berlin, Germany
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Article / Publication Details
Background: Mean diameter or longest diameter are the 2 most frequently used parameters for wheal response assessment after skin prick testing (SPT). We aimed to compare these 2 parameters taking as gold standard the surface of the wheal skin response. Patients and Methods: Patients suspected of having an allergic reaction against inhalant allergens have been skin prick tested using the Pan-European GA2LEN SPT panel. Fifteen minutes later, macroscopically evident wheal and flare reactions were marked with a pen and transferred to paper with a transparent scotch tape. Each paper-transferred wheal was scanned with an ordinary scanner, and its surface-corresponding maximum perpendicular diameters and longest diameters were measured using a computer software application for image recognition, developed for this purpose. Correlation coefficients (Spearman’s ρ) between surfaces and respective mean (ρmean) or longest (ρlongest) diameters were calculated and subsequently compared. Results: 1,554 SPTs were performed in 74 patients. In 264, a macroscopically evident wheal and flare response was observed. Both mean and longest diameters correlated significantly with the wheal surfaces. However, ρlongest was statistically significantly larger than ρmean when the surface of the wheal was >17 mm2 (ρlongest > 0.860 vs. ρmean < 0.660; p < 0.05).Such a surface corresponds to a maximum diameter of approximately 7 mm and a mean diameter of approximately 6 mm. Thus, the larger the surface of the wheal, the more appropriate the usage of the longest diameter. Conclusions: The longest wheal diameter alone seems to be a better surrogate marker of the wheal surface in comparison with the mean diameter. In addition, it is easier and faster to measure. Therefore, we propose this as the optimal methodology to evaluate SPTs.
© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.