Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Patch Testing and Prick Testing pp 33–70Cite as

Patch Testing Methodology

  • Chapter

Jozef Jadassohn is the father of patch testing [1]. At the time of his discovery in 1895, he was Professor of Dermatology at Breslau University (now Wroclaw in Poland). He initially reported a patient who had developed an eczematous reaction to mercury plasters. He recognized the potential for eczematous reactions to occur in some (sensitized) patients when chemicals were applied to their skin; he thereby introduced the world to the contact test, then referred to as “Funktionelle Hautprüfung” [2].

Bruno Bloch (Professor at Basel and Zurich Universities) is considered by the international community as one of the more outstanding pioneers in the field of patch testing, continuing, and expanding Jadassohn’s clinical and experimental work. In some textbooks and papers, patch testing is sometimes quoted as the Jadassohn-Bloch technique.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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   44.99
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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams RM (1993) Profiles of greats in contact dermatitis. I Jozef Jadassohn (1863–1936). Am J Contact Dermatitis 4:58–59

    Google Scholar 

  2. Jadassohn J (1896) Zur Kenntnis der medikamentösen Dermatosen. Verhandlungen der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft, Fünfter Congress, Graz, 1895. Wilhelm Braunmüller, Wien und Leipzig, pp 103–129

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gallant CJ (1994) Patch testing a century later. Chapter 4. In: Hogan DJ (ed) Occupational Skin Disorders, Ikagu-Shoin, New-York and Tokyo, pp 41–53

    Google Scholar 

  4. Wahlberg J, Lindberg M (2006) Diagnostic tests. In: Frosch PJ, Menné T, Lepoittevin JP (eds) Contact Dermatitis, 4th edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 365–390

    Google Scholar 

  5. Uter W, Schnuch A, Gefeller O (2006) Statistical methods in clinical epidemiology. In: Frosch PJ, Menné T, Lepoittevin JP (eds) Contact Dermatitis, 4th edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 150–163

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rietschel RL, Fowler JF Jr. (2008) Fisher’s Contact Dermatitis, 6th edn. BC Decker, Hamilton, Ontario

    Google Scholar 

  7. Grob JJ, Sambuc R, Gouvernet J (1997) Introduction to epidemiology and prevention in dermatology. Chapter 1. In: Grob JJ, Stern RS, MacKie RM, Weinstock WA (eds) Epidemiology, Causes and Prevention of Skin Diseases, Blackwell Science, Oxford, p 6

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lachapelle JM, Douka MA (1985) An evaluation of the compatibility between aluminium Finn Chambers and various mercurials dissolved in water or dispersed in petrolatum. Dermatosen 33:12–14

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Böhler-Sommeregger K, Lindemayr H (1986) Contact sensitivity to aluminium. Contact Dermatitis 15:278–281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dooms-Goossens A (1982) Allergic contact dermatitis to ingredients used in topical applied pharmaceutical products and cosmetics. Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, Belgium, Thesis

    Google Scholar 

  11. de Groot AC (2008) Patch testing. Test Concentrations and Vehicles for 4350 Chemicals, 3rd edn. acdegroot publishing, Schipsbootweg 5, NL 8351 HV Wapserveen

    Google Scholar 

  12. Patch Test Products Catalogue (2008) Chemotechnique Diagnostics

    Google Scholar 

  13. Benezra C, Andanson J, Chabeau G, 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 

  14. Bruze M, Isaksson M, Gruvberger B, Frick-Engfeldt M (2007) Recommendation of appropriate amounts of petrolatum preparation to be applied at patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 56:281–285

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Isaksson M, Gruvberger B, Frick-Engfeldt M, Bruze M (2007) Which test chambers should be used for acetone, ethanol and water solutions when patch testing? Contact Dermatitis 57:134–136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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 

  17. O’Quinn SE, Isbell RH (1969) Effect of oral prednisone on eczema patch test reactions, Arch Dermatol 99:380–389

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Anveden I, Lindberg M, Andersen KE et al. (2004) Oral prednisone suppresses allergic but not irritant patch test reactions in individuals hypersensitive to nickel. Contact Dermatitis 50:298–303

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Elston D, Licata A, Rudner E, Trotter K (2000) Pitfalls in patch testing. Am J Contact Dermat 11:184–188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lachapelle JM, Naeyaert JM (2006) About the D.U.N. Survey. Dermatologie Actualité (Brussels) N 94:5–7

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lindelöf B, Lidén S, Lagerholml 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 

  24. Goossens A, Morren M (2006) Contact allergy in children. In: Frosch PJ, Menné T, Lepoittevin JP (eds) Contact Dermatitis, 4th edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 811–830

    Google Scholar 

  25. Vigan M (2006) La batterie standard de l’enfant. In: Progrès en Dermato-Allergologie, Toulouse 2006, John Libbey Eurotext, Montrouge (France) pp 15–25

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 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 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Hellinckx K, Goossens A (2008) Late reactions to paraphenylenediamine are not always an indication of active sensitization: an example. Contact Dermatitis 58:110

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. 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 

  32. Geier J, Gefeller O, Wiechmann K, Fuchs T (1999) Patch test reactions at D4, D5 and D6. Contact Dermatitis 40:119–126

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Goh CL, Wong WK, Ng SK (1994) Comparison between 1-day and 2-day occlusion times in patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 31:48–49

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Le Coz CJ, Muller B (2002) A practical sparkling and durable way to mark patch test sites. Contact Dermatitis 46(Suppl 4):552–553

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wilkinson DS, Fregert S, Magnusson B, Bandmann HJ, Calnan CD, Cronin E, Hjorth N, Maibach HI, Malten KE, Meneghini CL, Pirilä V (1970) Terminology of contact dermatitis. Acta Dermato-Venereologica 50:287

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Uter W, Becker D, Schnuch A, Gefeller O, Frosch PJ (2007) The validity of rating patch test reactions based on digital images. Contact Dermatitis 57:337–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Fyad A, Masmoudi ML, Lachapelle JM (1987) The “edge effect” with patch test materials. Contact Dermatitis 16:147–151

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Isaksson M, Brandao FM, Bruze M, Goossens A (2000) Recommendations to include budesonide and tixocortol pivalate in the European standard series. Contact Dermatitis 43:1–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lachapelle JM (1989) A left versus right side comparison study of Epiquick® patch test reactions in 100 consecutive patients. Contact Dermatitis 20:51–56

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Foussereau J, Benezra C, Maibach HI (1982) Occupational contact dermatitis. Clinical and chemical aspects. Munksgaard, Copenhagen, pp 26–27

    Google Scholar 

  43. Bruynzeel DP, Maibach HI (1990) Excited skin syndrome 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 

  44. Kelett JK, Ring CH, Beck MH (1986) Compound allergy to medicaments. Contact Dermatitis 14:45–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Smeenk G, Kerckhoffs HP, Schreurs PH (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 

  47. Marks JG Jr, Elsner P, DeLeo V (2002) Contact and Occupational Dermatology, 3rd edn. Mosby, St.Louis

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Le Coz CJ, Bottlaender A, Scrivener JN, Santinelli F, Cribier B, Heid E, Grosshans E (1998) Photocontact dermatitis from ketoprofen and tiaprofenic acid: cross-reactivity study in 12 consecutive patients. Contact Dermatitis 38:245–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Pigatto PD, Bigardi A, Legori A, Valsecchi R, Picardo M (1996) Cross-reactions in patch testing and photopatchtesting with ketoprofen, tiaprofenic acid and cinnamic aldehyde. Am J Contact Dermat 7:220–223

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Le Coz CJ, Ducombs G (2006) Plant and plant products. In: Frosch PJ, Menné T, Lepoittevin JP (eds). Contact Dermatitis, 4th edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 751–800

    Google Scholar 

  52. Lisi P, Brunelli L, Stingeni L (2003) Co-sensitivity between cobalt and other transition metals. Contact Dermatitis 48:172–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Fregert S, Bandmann HJ (1975) Patch Testing. Published on behalf of the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Spinger-Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  54. Carlsen BC, Andersen KE, Menné T, Johansen JD (2008) Patients with multiple contact allergies: a review. Contact Dermatitis 58:1–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Schnuch A, Brasch J, Uter W (2008) Polysensitization and increased susceptibility in contact allergy: a review. Allergy 63:156–167

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Rietschel RL, Fowler JF Jr (2001) Fisher’s Contact Dermatitis. 5th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 13–18

    Google Scholar 

  57. Weiss G, Shemer A, Trau H (2002) The Koebner phenomenon: review of the literature. JEADV 16:241–248

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Deleuran M, Clemmensen O, Andersen KE (2000) Contact lupus erythematosus. Contact Dermatitis 43:169–185

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Bahillo-Monné C, Heras-Mendaza F, Casado-Farinas I, Gatica-Ortega M, Conde-Salazar L (2007) Jessner’s lymphocytic infiltrate as a Koebner response to patch test. Contact Dermatitis 57:197–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. 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 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Gawkrodger DJ, English JCS (2006) How safe is patch testing to PPD? Br J Dermatol 154:1025–1027

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Hellinckx K, Goossens A (2008) Late reaction to para-phenylenediamine are not always an indication of active sensitization: an example. Contact Dermatitis 58:110

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Mitchell JC (1975) The angry back syndrome. Eczema creates eczema. Contact Dermatitis 1:193–194

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Maibach HI (1981) The ESS-excited skin syndrome (alias the “angry back”). In: Ring J, Burg G (eds). New Trends in Allergy. Springer, Berlin, pp 208–221

    Google Scholar 

  66. Mitchell JC, Maibach HI (1982) The angry back syndrome — the excited skin syndrome. Semin Dermatol 1:9

    Google Scholar 

  67. Bruynzeel DP, Maibach HI (1986) Excited skin syndrome (angry back). Arch Dermatol 122:323–328

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Modjahedi SP, Maibach HI (2006) Ethnicity. In: Chew AL, Maibach HI (eds). Irritant Dermatitis. Springer, Berlin, pp 177–183

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  69. Nakayama H (2006) Pigmented contact dermatitis and chemical depigmentation. In: Frosch PJ, Menné T, Lepoittevin JP (eds) Contact Dermatitis, 4th edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 319–333

    Google Scholar 

  70. Weigand DA, Haygood C, Gaylor JR (1974) Cell layers and density of Negro and Caucasian stratum corneum. J Invest Dermatol 62:563–568

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Okoro A, Rook AJ, Canizares O (1992) Eczemas in the tropics. Plant dermatitis, Chapter 23. In: Canizares O, Harman R (eds). Clinical Tropical Dermatology, 2nd edn. pp 449–481

    Google Scholar 

  72. Goh CL (2006) Irritant contact dermatitis on the tropics. In: Chew AL, Maibach HI (eds) Irritant Dermatitis. Springer, Berlin, pp 105–108

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  73. Menné T, White I (2008) Standardization in contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 58:321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine Department of Dermatology, Université Catholique de Louvain, Clos Chapelle-aux-Champs 30, 1200, Bruxelles, Belgium

    J. -M. Lachapelle

  2. School of Medicine Department of Dermatology, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, 94143-0989, USA

    H. I. Maibach

Authors
  1. J. -M. Lachapelle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. I. Maibach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lachapelle, J.M., Maibach, H.I. (2009). Patch Testing Methodology. In: Patch Testing and Prick Testing. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92806-5_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92806-5_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-92805-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-92806-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation