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.

Keywords:
Wheal and flare reactions, Skin prick test, Wheal diameter
1.
Bernstein IL, Li JT, Bernstein DI, Hamilton R, Spector SL, Tan R, Sicherer S, Golden DB, Khan DA, Nicklas RA, Portnoy JM, Blessing-Moore J, Cox L, Lang DM, Oppenheimer J, Randolph CC, Schuller DE, Tilles SA, Wallace DV, Levetin E, Weber R: Allergy diagnostic testing: an updated practice parameter. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2008;100:S1–S148.
2.
Heinzerling L, Frew AJ, Bindslev-Jensen C, Bonini S, Bousquet J, Bresciani M, Carlsen KH, van Cauwenberge P, Darsow U, Fokkens WJ, Haahtela T, van Hoecke H, Jessberger B, Kowalski ML, Kopp T, Lahoz CN, Lodrup Carlsen KC, Papadopoulos NG, Ring J, Schmid-Grendelmeier P, Vignola AM, Wohrl S, Zuberbier T: Standard skin prick testing and sensitization to inhalant allergens across Europe – a survey from the GA2LEN network. Allergy 2005;60:1287–1300.
3.
Anonymous: Skin tests used in type I allergy testing position paper. Sub-committee on skin tests of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology. Allergy 1989;44(suppl 10):1–59.
4.
Wöhrl S, Vigl K, Binder M, Stingl G, Prinz M: Automated measurement of skin prick tests: an advance towards exact calculation of wheal size. Exp Dermatol 2006;15:119–124.
5.
Lin RY, Erlich ER, Don PC: Skin prick test responses to codeine, histamine, and ragweed utilizing the multitest device. Ann Allergy 1990;65:222–226.
6.
Dreborg S: Skin testing in allergen standardization and research. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am 2001;21:329–354.
© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel
2009
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: 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.
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.
You do not currently have access to this content.