Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patch Testing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Clinical Contact Dermatitis

Abstract

Patch testing is the main investigation in the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. It reproduces in miniature the clinical expression and the pathogenic mechanism of allergic contact dermatitis. It may seem simple to apply and read but in actual fact, the procedure is fairly complicated and proper performance requires adequate experience. Apart from in subjects with eczematous and noneczematous contact dermatitis, patch tests should be done in all cases of other eczematous dermatoses, and also in all cases of worsening of preexisting other dermatoses when a superimposed contact allergy is suspected due to topical treatment, for example. As regards the patch test procedures (selection of materials, type of chamber, dosing of chambers, sites of application, occlusion time, some practical suggestions, and reading times), there is a vast pertinent literature, and since there are various national legal regulations governing the execution of patch tests, dermatologists should be aware of the national frameworks in their own country. The readings of patch test reactions must be done by a dermatologist with adequate experience, in order to discriminate irritant and doubtful reactions and distinguish between doubtful and weak positive reactions. In particular the execution of tests with the patient’s own materials requiries proper experience and a highly trained staff. The various potential adverse effects (active sensitization, flare-up of contact dermatitis, Koebner phenomenon, persistent reaction, “angry back”, necrosis, scarrings, anaphylactoid reactions) must be regarded as complications not risks of patch tests, and therefore should not exclude their use. In order to be able to offer the patient useful prevention norms, an extremely important point is the assessment of the clinical relevance of the patch test reactions.

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 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Johansen JD, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, et al. European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing—recommendations on best pratice. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73:195.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lachapelle JM, Maibach HI. Patch testing—prick testing—a pratical guide. Berlin: Springer; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Angelini G, Bonamomte D, Cristando A, et al. Linee guida SIDAPA su dermatite da contatto. Ann Ital Dermatol Allergol. 2009;63:43.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Stingeni L, Bianchi L, Hansel K, et al. Italian guidelines in patch testing adapted from the European Society of Contact Dermatitis. Giorn Ital Dermatol Venereol. 2019;154:227.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Svedman C, Magnus B. Patch testing essentials. In: Johansen JD, Thyssen J, Lepoittevin J-P, editors. Quick guide to contact dermatitis. Berlin: Springer; 2016. p. 35.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sartorelli P, Angelini G, Ayala F, et al. Linee guida su dermatiti da contatto professionali (SIDAPA, SIMLII). Ann Ital Dermatol Allergol. 2005;59(suppl.):1.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Rietschell RL, Fowler JF Jr. (eds.). Practical aspects of patch testing. In: Fisher’ contact dermatitis, 5th edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2001. p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Nettis EN, Angelini G. Practical guide to patch testing. Springer Nature Switzerland AG; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Chowdhury MMV. Draft. Cutaneous allergy post-CCT curriculum 2014 version 13, updated 4/12/2013: Wales Cardiff and Yale University Health Board. 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Adisesh A, Robinson E, Nicholson PJ, et al. U.K. standards of care for occupational contact dermatitis and occupational contact urticaria. Br J Dermatol. 2013;168:1167.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Angelini G, Vena GA. Il dermatologo è il clinico meglio qualificato per l’esecuzione dei patch test. Giorn Ital Dermatol Venereol. 1995;130:85.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kieffer M. Nickel sensitivity: relationship between history and patch test reaction. Contact Dermatitis. 1979;5:398.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rietschel RL. Is patch testing cost-effective? J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989;21:885.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Rajagopalan R, Kallal JE, Fowler JF Jr, et al. A retrospective evaluation of patch testing in patients diagnosed with allergic contact dermatitis. Cutis. 1996;57:360.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bonamonte D, Foti C, Vestita M, et al. Noneczematous contact dermatitis. ISRN Allergy. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/361746.

  16. Meneghini CL, Angelini G. Atopic dermatitis, occupational and contact allergy. In: Maibach HI, editor. Urticaria and the exogenous dermatoses. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1989. p. 523.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bonamonte D, Foti C, Carpentieri A, et al. Dermatite allergica da contatto in età pediatrica. Ann Ital Dermatol Allergol. 2010;54:1.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Romita P, Foti C, Stingeni L, et al. Contact allergy in children with atopic dermatitis: a retrospective study. Endocr Metab Immune Disord Drug Targets. 2019. https://doi.org/10.2174/1871530319666190211123342.

  19. Bonamonte D, Foti C, Vestita M, et al. Nummular eczema and contact allergy: a retrospective study. Dermatitis. 2012;23:153.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Meneghini CL, Angelini G. Contact and microbial allergy in pompholyx. Contact Dermatitis. 1979;5:46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Angelini G, Rantuccio F, Meneghini CL. Contact dermatitis in patients with leg ulcers. Contact Dermatitis. 1975;1:81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Angelini G, Vena GA, Meneghini CL. Psoriasis and contact allergy to propolis. Contact Dermatitis. 1987;17:251.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Angelini G. Topical drugs. In: Rycroft RJG, Menné T, Frosch PJ, editors. Textbook of contact dermatitis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1995. p. 477.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Angelini G, Vena GA, Grandolfo M, et al. Iatrogenic contact dermatitis and eczematous reactions. Clin Dermatol. 1993;11:467.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Meneghini CL, Vena GA, Angelini G. Contact dermatitis to scabicides. Contact Dermatitis. 1982;8:285.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Wee JS, White JML, McFadden JP, et al. Patch testing in patients treated with systemic immunosuppression and cytokine inhibitors. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;62:165.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Aldridge RD, Sewell HF, King G. Topical cyclosporin A in nickel contact hypersensitivity: results of a preliminary clinical and immunohistochemical investigation. Clin Exp Immunol. 1986;66:582.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Nakagawa S, Oka D, Jinno Y, et al. Topical application of cyclosporine on guinea pig allergic contact dermatitis. Arch Dermatol. 1988;124:907.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Biren CA, Barr RJ, Ganderup GS, et al. Topical cyclosporine: effects on allergic contact dermatitis in guinea pigs. Contact Dermatitis. 1989;20:10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Vena GA, Foti C, Grandolfo M, et al. Trattamento della dermatite da contatto con ciclosporina A. Boll Dermatol Allergol Profes. 1983;8:75.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Flori ML, Andreassi L. Patch tests after cyclosporin A treatment in hyperreactive patients. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;31:325.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Vena GA, Foti C, Piazzolla L, et al. Can cyclosporin A help distinguish allergic from irritant patch test reactions? Contact Dermatitis. 1994;31:256.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. O’Quinn SE, Isbell KH, et al. Influence of oral prednisone on eczematous patch test reactions. Arch Dermatol. 1969;99:380.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Feuerman E, Levy A. A study of the effect of prednisone and an antihistamine on patch test reactions. Br J Dermatol. 1972;86:68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Condie MW, Adams RM. Influence of oral prednisone on patch-test reactions to Rhus antigen. Arch Dermatol. 1973;107:540.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Sukanto H, Nater JP, Bleumink E, et al. Influence of topically applied corticosteroids on patch test reactions. Contact Dermatitis. 1981;7:180.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lembo G, Lo Presti M, Balato N, et al. Influence of cinnarizine on patch test reactions. Contact Dermatitis. 1985;13:341.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Cooper KD, Oberhelman L, Hamilton TA, et al. UV exposure reduces immunization rates and promotes tolerance to epicutaneous antigens in humans: relationship to dose, CD1a-DR+ epidermal macrophage induction, and Langerhans cell depletion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992;89:8497.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Skov L, Hausen H, Barker JN, et al. Contrasting effects of ultraviolet-A and ultraviolet-B exposure on induction of contact sensitivity in human skin. Clin Exp Immunol. 1997;107:585.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Thorvaldsen J, Volden G. PUVA-induced diminution of contact allergic and irritant skin reactions. Clin Exp Immunol. 1980;5:43.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Seité S, Zucchi H, Moyal D, et al. Alterations in human epidermal Langerhans cells by ultraviolet radiation: quantitative and morphological study. Br J Dermatol. 2003;148:291.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Uter W. Allergic contact dermatitis. In: Thyssen JP, Maibach HI, editors. Filaggrin molecules in heath and disease. Berlin: Springer; 2014. p. 251.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Thyssen JP, Linneberg A, Ross-Hausen K, et al. Filaggrin mutations are strongly associated with contact sensitization in individuals with dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68:273.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Johnson MW, Maibach HI, Salmon SE. Brief communication: quantitative impairment of primary inflammatory response in patients with cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1973;51:1075.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. van der Harst-Oostveen CJ, van Vloten WA. Delayed-type hypersensitivity in patients with mycosis fungoides. Dermatologica. 1978;157:129.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Siemund I, Zimerson E, Hindsén M, et al. Establishing aluminium contact allergy. Contact Dermatits. 2012;67:162.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Bruze M, Björkner B, Lepoittevin JP. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis from ethyl cyanoacrylate. Contact Dermatits. 1995;32:156.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Bruze M, Condé-Salazar L, Goossens A, et al. Thoughts on sensitizers in a standard patch test series. The European society of contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;41:241.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Bruze M, Isaksson M, Gruvberger B, et al. Recommendation of appropriate amounts of petrolatum preparation to be applied at patch testing. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;56:281.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Frick-Engfeldt M, Gruvberger B, Isaksson M, et al. Comparison of three different techniques for application of water solutions to Finn Chambers. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;63:284.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Bruze M, Frick-Engfeldt M, Gruvberger B, et al. Variation in the amount of petrolatum preparation applied at patch testing. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;56:38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Memon AA, Friedmann. Studies on the reproducibility of allergic contact dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 1996;134:208.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Hannuskela M. Sensitivity of various skin sites in the repeated open application test. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 1991;2:102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. van Strien GA, Korstanje MJ. Site variations in patch test responses on the back. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;31:95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Simonetti V, Manzini BM, Seidenari S. Patch testing with nickel sulfate: comparison between 2 nickel sulfate preparations and 2 different test sites on the back. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;39:187.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ale SI, Maibach HI. 24-hour versus 48-hour occlusion in pacth testing. Exog Dermatol. 2003;2:270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Memon AA, Friedmann PS. ‘Angry back syndrome’: a non-reproducible phenomenon. Br J Dermatol. 1996;135:924.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Bourke J, Coulson I, English J. Guidelines for the management of contact dermatitis: an update. Br J Dermatol. 2009;160:946.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Macfarlane AW, Curley RK, Graham RM, et al. Delayed patch test reactions at days 7 and 9. Contact Dermatitis. 1989;20:127.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Jonker MJ, Bruynzeel DP. The outcome of an additional patch-test reading on days 6 or 7. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;42:330.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Isaksson M, Andersen KE, Brandão FM, et al. Patch testing with corticosteroid mixes in Europe. A multicentre study of the EECDRG. Contact Dermatitis. 2000;42:27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Uter WJ, Geier J, Schnuch A. Good clinical practice in patch testing: readings beyond day 2 are necessary: a confirmatory analysis. Members of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 1996;7:231.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Wilkinson DS, Fregert S, Magnusson B, et al. Terminology of contact dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol. 1970;50:287.  

    Google Scholar 

  65. Svedman C, Isaksson M, Björk J, et al. ‘Calibration’ of our patch test reading technique is necessary. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66:180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Andersen KE, Andersen F. The reaction index and positivity ratio revisited. Contact Dermatitis. 2008;58:28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Isaksson M, Bruze M, Goossens A, et al. Patch testing with budesonide in serial dilutions: the significance of dose, occlusion time and reading time. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;40:24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Grandolfo M, Pipoli M, Foti C, et al. Influence of vehicle on patch test response to nickel sulfate. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;35:173.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Frosch PJ, Geier J, Uter W et al. Pacth testing with the patient’s own products. In: Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin J-P, editors, 5th edn. Textbook of contact dermatitis. Berlin: Springer; 2011. p. 1107.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Krautheian A, Leissmann H, Geier J. Pacth testing with patient’s own materials handled at work. In: Rustemeyer T, Elsner P, John SM, et al., editors, 2nd edn. Kanerva’s occupational dermatology. Springer, Heidelberg; 2012. p. 919.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Goossens A. Testing with the patient’s own products. In: Johansen JD, Lepoittevin J-P, Thyssen JP, editors. Quick guide to contact dermatitis. Berlin: Springer; 2016. p. 47.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  72. Bruze M. Use of buffer solutions for patch testing. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;10:267.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Bruze M, Trulsson L, Bendsöe N. Patch testing with ultrasonic bath extracts. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 1992;3:133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Bruze M, Frick M, Persson L. Patch testing with thin-layer chromatograms. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48:278.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Cronin E. Clinical prediction of patch test results. Trans St Johns Hosp Dermatol Soc. 1972;58:153.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Fisher T, Rystedt I. A case of contact sensitivity to aluminium. Contact Dermatitis. 1982;8:343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Meding B, Augustsson A, Hausson C. Patch test reaction to aluminium. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;10:107.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Kotovirta ML, Salo OP, Visa-Tolvanen K. Contact sensitivity to aluminium. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;11:135.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Cox Nh, Moss C, Forsyth A. Allergy to non-toxoid constituents of vaccines and implications for patch testing. Contact Dermatitis. 1988;18:143.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Tosti A, Vincenzi C, Peluso AM. Accidental diagnosis of aluminium sensitivity with Finn Chambers. Contact Dermatitis. 1990;23:48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Bajaj AK, Gupta SC, Pandey RK, et al. Aluminium contact sensitivity. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;37:307.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Alkyol A, Boyvat A, Kundakçi N. Contact sensitivity to aluminium. Int J Dermatol. 2004;43:942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Matura M, Anveden Bergling I, Ohlén A. An unexpected case of contact allergy to aluminium. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66(suppl 2):S40.

    Google Scholar 

  84. King N, Moffitt D. Allergic contact dermatitis secondary to the use of aluminium Finn Chambers. Contact Dermatitis. 2018;78:365.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Sánchez-Gilo A, Gómez- de la Fuente E, Vicente-Martin FJ. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by Finn Chambers AQUA in two patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:246.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Hamnerius N, Mowitz M. Two cases of contact allergic reactions to Finn Chamber AQUA test chambers. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;81:320.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Hillen U, Frosch PJ, John SM, et al. Patch test sensitization caused by para-tertiary-butylcatechol. Results of a prospective study with a dilution series. Contact Dermatitis. 2001;45:193.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Bruze M. Simultaneous patch test sensitization to 4 chemically unrelated compounds in a standard test series. Contact Dermatitis. 1984;11:48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Estlander T, Kostiainen M, Jolanki R. Active sensitization and occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by para-tertiary-butylcatechol. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;38:96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Kanerva L, Estlander T, Jolanki R. Sensitization to patch test acrylates. Contact Dermatitis. 1988;18:10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Fonia A, White JM, McFadden JP, et al. Active sensitization to chloracetamide. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60:58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Wilkinson SM, Pollock B. Patch test sensitization after use of the Compositae mix. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;40:277.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Meneghini CL, Rantuccio F, Lomuto M, et al. A propos de réactions de sensibilization active après l'exécution des test diagnostiques epicutanés: observations sur 281 cas. Ann Dermatol Syphiligr. 1972;99:161

    Google Scholar 

  94. Meneghini CL, Angelini G. Behaviour of contact allergy and new sensitivities on subsequent patch tests. Contact Dermatitis. 1977;3:138.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Mose AP, Steenfeldt N, Andersen KE. Flare-up of dermatitis following patch testing is more common in polysensitized patients. Contact Dermatitis. 2010;63:289.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Uchida S, Oiso N, Matsunaga K, et al. Patch test reaction to p-phenylenediamine can persist for more than 1 month. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;69:382.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Goossens A, De Swerdt A, De Coninck K, et al. Allergic contact granuloma due to palladium following ear piercing. Contact Dermatitis. 2006;55:338.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Jellesen MS, et al. Provocation test with metallic palladium in a palladium-allergic patient. Contact Dermat. 2011;65:304.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  99. Mitchell JC. The angry back syndrome: eczema creates eczema. Contact Dermatitis. 1975;1:193.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Mitchell JC. Angry back syndrome. Contact Dermatitis. 1981;7:359.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Mitchell JC. Multiple concomitant positive patch test reactions. Contact Dermatitis. 1977;3:315.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Bruynzeel DP, van Ketel WG, von Blomberg-van der Flier BM, et al. The angry back syndrome—a retrospective study. Contact Dermatitis. 1981;7:293.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Calnan CD. The use and abuse of pacth tests. In: Maibach HI, Gellin GA, editors. Occupational and industrial dermatology. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers; 1982. p. 102.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Maibach HI. The ESS-excited skin syndrome (alias the “angry back”). In: Ring J, Burg G, editors. New trends in allergy. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1981. p. 208.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  105. Micthell JC, Maibach HI. The angry back syndrome - the excited skin syndrome. Semin Dermatol. 1982;1:9.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Ayala F, Balato N, Lembo G, et al. Statistical evaluation of the persistence of acquired hypersensitivity by standardized patch tests. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;34:354.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Lugt LVD, Veninga TS. Nonspecific hypersensitivity of the skin. Dermatologica. 1980;162:438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Andersen KE, Maibach HI. Cumulative irritancy in the guinea pig from low grade irritant vehicles and the angry skin syndrome. Contact Dermatitis. 1980;6:430.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Bruze M. What is a relevant contact allergy? Contact Dermatitis. 1990;23:224.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Ale SI, Maibach HI. Clinical relevance in allergic contact dermatitis. Dermatosen. 1995;43:119.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Lachapelle JM. A proposed relevance scoring system for positive allergic patch test reactions: practical implications and limitations. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;36:39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. de Groot AC. Clinical relevance of positive patch test reactions to preservatives and fragrances. Contact Dermatitis. 1999;41:224.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Bonamonte D, Foti C, Mundo L, et al. La rilevanza clinica nella dermatite allergica da contatto. Proposta di screening. Ann Ital Dermatol Allergol. 2006;60:41.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Whalberg JE (1995) Patch testing. In: Rycroft RJG, Menné T, Frosch PH, editors. Textbook of contact dermatitis, 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, p. 239.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Fransway AF, Zug KA, Belsito DV, et al. North American contact dermatitis group patch test results for 2007–2008. Dermatitis. 2013;24:10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Johansen JD, Fisher Friis V, Thyssen JP. Basics in diagnostic work up and assessment of clinical relevance. In: Johansen JD, Lepoittevin J-P, Thyssen JP, editors. Quick guide to contact dermatitis. Berlin: Springer; 2016. p. 57.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  117. Marks JG Jr, Moss JN, Parno JR, et al. Methylchloroisothiazolinone-methyliso thyazolinone (Kathon CG) biocide. United States multicenter study of human skin sensitization. Am J Contact Dermatitis. 1990;1:157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Fischer LA, Voelund A, Andersen KE, et al. The dose-response relationship between the patch test and ROAT and the potential use for regulatory purposes. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;61:201.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Simonsen AB, Deleuran M, Mortz CG, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis in Danish children referred for patch testing - a nationwide multicentre study. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Schena D, Papagrigoraki A, Tessari G, et al. Allergic contact dermatitis in children with and without atopic dermatitis. Dermatitis. 2012;23:275.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Netherkid E, Hidsén M, Ekqvist S, et al. Young individuals with atopic disease and asthma or rhinoconjunctivitis may have clinically relevant contact allergies. Dermatitis. 2014;25:115.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  122. Moustafa M, Holden CR, Athavale P, et al. Patch testing is a useful investigation in children with eczema. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;65:208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Morren M-A, Goossens A. Contact allergy in children. In: Johansen JD, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin J-P, editors. Contact dermatitis. Heidelberg: Springer; 2011. p. 937.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  124. Hextall JM, Alagaratnam NJ, Glendinning AK. Dose-time relationships for elicitation of contact allergy to paraphenylenediamine. Contact Dermatitis. 2002;47:96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Spornraft-Regaller P, Schnuch A, Uter W. Extreme patch test reactivity to p-phenylenediamine but not to other in children. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;65:220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy

    Caterina Foti & Domenico Bonamonte

  2. Istituto Oncologico Veneto, IRCCS, Padua, Italy

    Angela Filoni

  3. Professor of Dermatology, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy

    Gianni Angelini

Authors
  1. Caterina Foti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Domenico Bonamonte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Angela Filoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gianni Angelini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caterina Foti .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Dermatology, Bari, Italy

    Gianni Angelini

  2. Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy

    Domenico Bonamonte

  3. Department of Biomedical Science and Human Oncology, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy

    Caterina Foti

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Foti, C., Bonamonte, D., Filoni, A., Angelini, G. (2021). Patch Testing. In: Angelini, G., Bonamonte, D., Foti, C. (eds) Clinical Contact Dermatitis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49332-5_23

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49332-5_23

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-49331-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-49332-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation