• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

Comparison of the Quintest to the lancet in allergic skin testing.

作者信息

Carrozzi F M, Byth K, Katelaris C H

机构信息

Department of Clinical Immunology and Allergy, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia.

出版信息

Asian Pac J Allergy Immunol. 1998 Dec;16(4):149-54.

PMID:10219895
Abstract

Many skin testing devices have been commercially available over recent years, but use has been limited because of significantly greater costs of such devices. Therefore, the lancet continues to be the most widely used skin testing device in Australia. This study compared performance of another multitest device, the Bayer Quintest to the Becton Dickinson Microlance. Nineteen atopic volunteers were skin tested using histamine dihydrochloride 10 mg/ml, glycerosaline and eight allergens. In 190 tests, 6 discrepancies between the Quintest and Microlance occurred. The Microlance produced slightly larger wheals than the Quintest, reaching statistical significance in 3 allergens. We found the Quintest comparable to the Microlance in concordance of positive and negative allergen responses and in wheal size. The Quintest had higher acceptability to both participants and staff for comfort, ease of use and safety. The Quintest's major advantage is the ability to rapidly screen large numbers of subjects, especially during clinical trials. The major limitation is it's cost.

摘要

相似文献

1
Comparison of the Quintest to the lancet in allergic skin testing.
Asian Pac J Allergy Immunol. 1998 Dec;16(4):149-54.
2
A comparison of two skin test methodologies and allergens from two different manufacturers.
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2002 Apr;88(4):374-9. doi: 10.1016/S1081-1206(10)62367-8.
3
A comparison of six epicutaneous devices in the performance of immediate hypersensitivity skin testing.六种表皮装置在速发型超敏反应皮肤试验中的性能比较。
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1989 Aug;84(2):168-74. doi: 10.1016/0091-6749(89)90321-7.
4
Evaluation of devices for skin prick testing.皮肤点刺试验设备的评估
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1998 Feb;101(2 Pt 1):153-6. doi: 10.1016/S0091-6749(98)70409-9.
5
Evaluation of the Multi-Test device for immediate hypersensitivity skin testing.
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1992 Dec;90(6 Pt 1):979-85. doi: 10.1016/0091-6749(92)90471-d.
6
Comparison of a new lancet and a hypodermic needle for skin prick testing.用于皮肤点刺试验的新型采血针与皮下注射针的比较。
Allergy. 1983 Jul;38(5):359-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.1983.tb04131.x.
7
Evaluation of three methods for using the Duotip-Test device for skin testing.使用Duotip-Test设备进行皮肤测试的三种方法的评估。
Asian Pac J Allergy Immunol. 2000 Sep;18(3):153-6.
8
Comparative performance of five commercial prick skin test devices.五种商用点刺皮肤测试设备的性能比较
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1993 Nov;92(5):750-6. doi: 10.1016/0091-6749(93)90019-c.
9
Comparative performance for immediate hypersensitivity skin testing using two skin prick test devices.
J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 1995 Nov-Dec;5(6):354-6.
10
Pain perception and performance of three devices for single-site allergen skin testing.三种单部位变应原皮肤试验装置的疼痛感知与性能
Allergy Asthma Proc. 2014 Jan-Feb;35(1):63-5. doi: 10.2500/aap.2014.35.3714.