↓ Skip to main content

Measurement and interpretation of skin prick test results

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Translational Allergy, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Measurement and interpretation of skin prick test results
Published in
Clinical and Translational Allergy, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13601-016-0092-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. P. M. van der Valk, R. Gerth van Wijk, E. Hoorn, L. Groenendijk, I. M. Groenendijk, N. W. de Jong

Abstract

There are several methods to read skin prick test results in type-I allergy testing. A commonly used method is to characterize the wheal size by its 'average diameter'. A more accurate method is to scan the area of the wheal to calculate the actual size. In both methods, skin prick test (SPT) results can be corrected for histamine-sensitivity of the skin by dividing the results of the allergic reaction by the histamine control. The objectives of this study are to compare different techniques of quantifying SPT results, to determine a cut-off value for a positive SPT for histamine equivalent prick -index (HEP) area, and to study the accuracy of predicting cashew nut reactions in double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) tests with the different SPT methods. Data of 172 children with cashew nut sensitisation were used for the analysis. All patients underwent a DBPCFC with cashew nut. Per patient, the average diameter and scanned area of the wheal size were recorded. In addition, the same data for the histamine-induced wheal were collected for each patient. The accuracy in predicting the outcome of the DBPCFC using four different SPT readings (i.e. average diameter, area, HEP-index diameter, HEP-index area) were compared in a Receiver-Operating Characteristic (ROC) plot. Characterizing the wheal size by the average diameter method is inaccurate compared to scanning method. A wheal average diameter of 3 mm is generally considered as a positive SPT cut-off value and an equivalent HEP-index area cut-off value of 0.4 was calculated. The four SPT methods yielded a comparable area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84, 0.85, 0.83 and 0.83, respectively. The four methods showed comparable accuracy in predicting cashew nut reactions in a DBPCFC. The 'scanned area method' is theoretically more accurate in determining the wheal area than the 'average diameter method' and is recommended in academic research. A HEP-index area of 0.4 is determined as cut-off value for a positive SPT. However, in clinical practice, the 'average diameter method' is also useful, because this method provides similar accuracy in predicting cashew nut allergic reactions in the DBPCFC. Trial number NTR3572.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 138 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 16%
Student > Master 14 10%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 49 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 51 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 March 2017.
All research outputs
#3,046,578
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#202
of 667 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,055
of 298,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Translational Allergy
#5
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 667 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 298,761 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.