2018Allergology InternationalOpen access

Thermography: High sensitivity and specificity diagnosing contact dermatitis in patch testing

Florian Anzengruber, Fayez Alotaibi, Lilian S. Kaufmann, Adhideb Ghosh, Martin R. Oswald, Julia‐Tatjana Maul, Barbara Meier, Lars E. French, Mathias Bonmarin, Alexander A. Navarini

Open full text 27 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patch testing of contact allergens to diagnose allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a traditional, useful tool. The most important decision is the distinction between allergic and irritant reactions, as this has direct implications on diagnosis and management. Our objective was to evaluate a new method of non-contact infrared reading of patch tests. Secondary objectives included a possible correlation between the intensity of the patch test reaction and temperature change. METHODS: 420 positive reactions from patients were included in our study. An independent patch test reader assessed the positive reactions and classified them as allergic (of intensity + to +++) or irritant (IR). At the same time, a forward-looking infrared (FLIR) camera attachment for an iPhone was used to acquire infrared thermal images of the patch tests, and images were analyzed using the FLIR ONE app. RESULTS: Allergic patch test reactions were characterized by temperature increases of 0.72 ± 0.67 °C compared to surrounding skin. Irritant reactions only resulted in 0.17 ± 0.31 °C temperature increase. The mean temperature difference between the two groups was highly significant (p < 0.0001) and therefore was used to predict the type of contact dermatitis. CONCLUSIONS: Thermography is a reliable and effective way to distinguish between allergic and irritant contact dermatitis.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

BACKGROUND: Patch testing of contact allergens to diagnose allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a traditional, useful tool. The most important decision is the distinction between allergic and irritant reactions, as this has direct implications on diagnosis and management. Our objective was to evaluate a new method of non-contact infrared reading of patch tests. Secondary objectives included a possible correlation between the intensity of the patch test reaction and temperature change. METHODS: 420 positive reactions from patients were included in our study. An independent patch test reader assessed the positive reactions and classified them as allergic (of intensity + to +++) or irritant (IR). At the same time, a forward-looking infrared (FLIR) camera attachment for an iPhone was used to acquire infrared thermal images of the patch tests, and images were analyzed using the FLIR ONE app. RESULTS: Allergic patch test reactions were characterized by temperature increases of 0.72 ± 0.67 °C compared to surrounding skin. Irritant reactions only resulted in 0.17 ± 0.31 °C temperature increase. The mean temperature difference between the two groups was highly significant (p < 0.0001) and therefore was used to predict the type of contact dermatitis. CONCLUSIONS: Thermography is a reliable and effective way to distinguish between allergic and irritant contact dermatitis.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 27 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

BACKGROUND: Patch testing of contact allergens to diagnose allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is a traditional, useful tool. The most important decision is the distinction between allergic and irritant reactions, as this has direct implications on diagnosis and management. Our objective was to evaluate a new method of non-contact infrared reading of patch tests. Secondary objectives included a possible correlation between the intensity of the patch test reaction and temperature change. METHODS: 420 positive reactions from patients were included in our study. An independent patch test reader assessed the positive reactions and classified them as allergic (of intensity + to +++) or irritant (IR). At the same time, a forward-looking infrared (FLIR) camera attachment for an iPhone was used to acquire infrared thermal images of the patch tests, and images were analyzed using the FLIR ONE app. RESULTS: Allergic patch test reactions were characterized by temperature increases of 0.72 ± 0.67 °C compared to surrounding skin. Irritant reactions only resulted in 0.17 ± 0.31 °C temperature increase. The mean temperature difference between the two groups was highly significant (p < 0.0001) and therefore was used to predict the type of contact dermatitis. CONCLUSIONS: Thermography is a reliable and effective way to distinguish between allergic and irritant contact dermatitis.

Key concepts: Patch test, Patch testing, Thermography, Allergic contact dermatitis, Irritant contact dermatitis, Contact dermatitis, Dermatology, Medicine

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Thermography: High sensitivity and specificity diagnosing contact dermatitis in patch testing — Research Paper | ScholarLens