Comparison of atopy patch testing to skin prick testing for diagnosing mite‐induced atopic dermatitis: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Issue 1 (29th November 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Liu, Yumei; Peng, Jianglong; Zhou, Ying; Cui, Yubao
• Is Part Of: Clinical and translational allergy. Volume 7:Issue 1(2017)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2017-11-29
• Subjects: Atopic eczema/dermatitis syndrome -- Atopy patch test -- Skin prick test -- Diagnosis; Allergy -- Periodicals; Immunology -- Periodicals; Allergy and Immunology -- Periodicals; Hypersensitivity -- Periodicals; Immune System Phenomena -- Periodicals; 616.97005
• DOI: 10.1186/s13601-017-0178-3
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2045-7022

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) can occur after contact with aeroallergens like house dust mites, pollen, and animal dander. Despite its controversial diagnostic value, the atopy patch test (APT) has been used as an important tool in the diagnosis of AD caused by house dust mites. Here, we present a meta‐analysis comparing APT to the common skin prick test (SPT) in the diagnosis of mite‐induced AD. Methods: A structured search was performed using online databases and bibliographies published as of April 30, 2017. All studies evaluating the accuracy of APT and SPT in the diagnosis of mite‐induced atopic eczema/dermatitis syndrome were selected, appraised, and data was extracted. Results: Ten studies were identified for inclusion in our analysis. Meta‐analysis revealed that the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratios for APT were 0.54 (95% CI 0.42–0.66), 0.72 (95% CI 0.56–0.85), 1.97 (95% CI 1.20–3.23), 0.63 (95% CI 0.48–0.83), and 3.12 (95% CI 1.53–6.39). The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.65 (95% CI 0.61–0.69). Conclusions: Our analysis indicates that APT is a useful tool in the screening of mite‐induced AD, although this conclusion must be interpreted cautiously due to high heterogeneity among the included studies.