Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
15th National Conference of the IAOMFP, Chennai, 2006
Abstract
Abstracts from current literature
Acne in India: Guidelines for management - IAA Consensus Document
Addendum
Announcement
Art & Psychiatry
Article
Articles
Association Activities
Association Notes
Award Article
Book Review
Brief Report
Case Analysis
Case Letter
Case Letters
Case Notes
Case Report
Case Reports
Clinical and Laboratory Investigations
Clinical Article
Clinical Studies
Clinical Study
Commentary
Conference Oration
Conference Summary
Continuing Medical Education
Correspondence
Corrigendum
Cosmetic Dermatology
Cosmetology
Current Best Evidence
Current Issue
Current View
Derma Quest
Dermato Surgery
Dermatopathology
Dermatosurgery Specials
Dispensing Pearl
Do you know?
Drug Dialogues
e-IJDVL
Editor Speaks
Editorial
Editorial Remarks
Editorial Report
Editorial Report - 2007
Editorial report for 2004-2005
Errata
Erratum
Focus
Fourth All India Conference Programme
From Our Book Shelf
From the Desk of Chief Editor
General
Get Set for Net
Get set for the net
Guest Article
Guest Editorial
History
How I Manage?
IADVL Announcement
IADVL Announcements
IJDVL Awards
IJDVL AWARDS 2015
IJDVL Awards 2018
IJDVL Awards 2019
IJDVL Awards 2020
IJDVL International Awards 2018
Images in Clinical Practice
In Memorium
Inaugural Address
Index
Knowledge From World Contemporaries
Leprosy Section
Letter in Response to Previous Publication
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor - Case Letter
Letter to the Editor - Letter in Response to Published Article
LETTER TO THE EDITOR - LETTERS IN RESPONSE TO PUBLISHED ARTICLES
Letter to the Editor - Observation Letter
Letter to the Editor - Study Letter
Letter to the Editor - Therapy Letter
Letter to the Editor: Articles in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters in Response to Previous Publication
Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor - Letter in Response to Previously Published Articles
Letters to the Editor: Case Letters
Letters to the Editor: Letters in Response to Previously Published Articles
Medicolegal Window
Messages
Miscellaneous Letter
Musings
Net Case
Net case report
Net Image
Net Letter
Net Quiz
Net Study
New Preparations
News
News & Views
Obituary
Observation Letter
Observation Letters
Oration
Original Article
ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
Original Contributions
Pattern of Skin Diseases
Pearls
Pediatric Dermatology
Pediatric Rounds
Perspective
Presedential Address
Presidential Address
Presidents Remarks
Quiz
Recommendations
Regret
Report
Report of chief editor
Report of Hon : Treasurer IADVL
Report of Hon. General Secretary IADVL
Research Methdology
Research Methodology
Resident page
Resident's Page
Resident’s Page
Residents' Corner
Residents' Corner
Residents' Page
Retraction
Review
Review Article
Review Articles
Revision Corner
Self Assessment Programme
SEMINAR
Seminar: Chronic Arsenicosis in India
Seminar: HIV Infection
Short Communication
Short Communications
Short Report
Snippets
Special Article
Specialty Interface
Studies
Study Letter
Study Letters
Supplement-Photoprotection
Supplement-Psoriasis
Symposium - Contact Dermatitis
Symposium - Lasers
Symposium - Pediatric Dermatoses
Symposium - Psoriasis
Symposium - Vesicobullous Disorders
SYMPOSIUM - VITILIGO
Symposium Aesthetic Surgery
Symposium Dermatopathology
Symposium-Hair Disorders
Symposium-Nails Part I
Symposium-Nails-Part II
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis
Tables
Technology
Therapeutic Guideline-IADVL
Therapeutic Guidelines
Therapeutic Guidelines - IADVL
Therapeutics
Therapy
Therapy Letter
Therapy Letters
View Point
Viewpoint
What’s new in Dermatology
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Residents’ Page
ARTICLE IN PRESS
doi:
10.25259/IJDVL_948_2021

Various techniques for marking patch test sites

Department of Dermatology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India
Corresponding author: Dr. Neel Prabha, Department of Dermatology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India. ripuneel@gmail.com
Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

How to cite this article: Prabha N, Yadav H. Various techniques for marking patch test sites. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol doi: 10.25259/IJDVL_948_2021

Abstract

Patch test helps in identifying the allergen causing allergic contact dermatitis. Proper identification of the site of individual patch test allergen is very important for identifying the positive allergen. In this article, various techniques for markings patch test sites are discussed.

Keywords

Patch test
marking

Patch test helps in identifying the allergen causing allergic contact dermatitis. It is one of the commonest procedures performed in the dermatology outpatient department. The first reading of the patch test is taken at 48 hours and subsequent readings at 72 hours or 96 hours are obligatory. For some allergens like corticosteroids and aminoglycoside antibiotics, a reading between 120 and 240 hours is necessary.1

Proper identification of the site of individual patch test allergen is very important for identifying the positive allergen. For this, various techniques for markings patch test sites are available, which will be discussed in this article.

Techniques for marking patch test sites

These can be divided into:

  • Marking pen, ink or dyes [Figures 1a-c]

  • Patch test mapping

  • Reading plates

Figure 1a:: Markings with permanent pen (1), surgical marker (2), gentian violet (3), triple dye (4) after removing patch
Figure 1b:: Markings on 2nd day (72 hours of patch test application) showing faded permanent pen markings
Figure 1c:: Markings on 3rd day (96 hours of patch test application) showing almost complete fading of permanent pen markings

Table 1 shows comparison between techniques for marking patch test sites.

Table 1:: Comparison between techniques for marking patch test sites
Method Advantage Disadvantage
Marking pen, ink or dyes Readily available Messy, stains clothing and skin, marking fades quickly, risk of allergic contact dermatitis to ink
Marking using patch test mapping. Transparent sheet readily available, no risk of staining of skin or clothing, delayed reading can be recorded, and transparent sheet can be reused No particular disadvantage
Reading plates Less messy as there is no need to mark individual chamber Available with a few patch test chambers only

Marking pen, ink or dyes

Permanent surgical markers or fluorescent highlighter are recommended for marking patch test sites.2 After removal of the patch, outlining of the entire panel and the individual chamber is done with these markers.

A permanent surgical marker is readily available and is commonly used in clinical practice. However, there are certain drawbacks to permanent surgical marker.

  • It is messy and stains clothing [Figure 2].

  • Skin moisture causes difficulty in marking.

  • The marking fades quickly. Fading will cause difficulty in locating the exact site of allergens leading to difficulty in interpreting late readings.

  • The marker does not last long. Petrolatum, tape adhesive residue and sebum damage their tip, increasing the overall cost.3

  • There is a risk of allergic contact dermatitis to making pen ink.4,5

Figure 2:: Staining of cloth by marker ink

A fluorescent skin marker can also be used for marking.2,6 Wood lamp is needed to localize the markings. This technique has many advantages over permanent skin markers. In this technique, markings are not visible by the naked eye, less messy, do not stain clothing, and do not fade quickly; fluorescence persists for weeks even after bathing and is helpful for patients with darker skin tones. The problem with this is that it is not readily available, and Wood lamp is required for reading.

Dye solutions like gentian violet, Castellani paint and similar other dyes have also been proposed for markings the patch test sites.7 These are efficacious, readily available and economical for marking patch test sites compared to commercially available markers. Some commercially available markers have gentian violet and silver nitrate for prolonged skin staining.8 Skin moisture does not cause difficulty in marking with dyes. The main drawback is the staining of skin and clothing. For white-skinned individuals a concentrated solution of dihydroxyacetone in a mixture of water, alcohol and acetone can be used for marking. It does not stain clothing.7

Marking using patch test mapping [Figures 3a-d]

In this technique, transparent plastic non-adherent sheets or commercially available patchMap are used.3,9 Immediately after applying the patch test, the transparent sheet is placed over the patient’s back, covering the patch panel. Outlining of panel and chambers is done over these sheets with an erasable pen. For alignment, certain landmarks like permanent skin lesions (moles, scars) are also marked. In case of the non-availability of these landmarks, artificial landmarks outside the patch (preferably at the periphery of the transparent sheet) are created and marked. When the patch is removed for reading, the sheet is applied to the patient’s back, according to marks of permanent or artificial landmarks. This helps in the identification of positive test sites. These sheets can be stored for delayed readings. This method has several advantages over other marking methods.3 There is no risk of staining of skin or clothing, and the patient can wash their back after the first reading, no risk of allergic reaction to inks, delayed reading can be recorded and inexpensive.

Figure 3a:: In case of the non-availability of moles/scars, create artificial landmark by sticking adhesive elastic tape (arrow) outside the patch
Figure 3b:: Marking on A4 size overhead projector transparency sheet, just after patch application. Artificial landmarks are also marked (arrow)
Figure 3c:: One positive reaction (arrow) after 30 minutes of patch removal; note that marking is not done on the patient’s skin
Figure 3d:: Marked overhead projector transparency sheet is applied to the patient’s back, according to marks of artificial landmarks. This helped in the identification of positive test site

Reading plates

Reading plates identify the individual chamber sites without marking each site.10 These are plastic templates, that match the shape of the patch, and the holes in it match the individual chamber. In some reading plates pictures of grades of positivity are also provided for easy reading.

Conclusion

Identifying the exact site of individual allergens is very important while interpreting the patch test results. For this, various techniques of patch test markings have been described. All methods have some advantages or disadvantages. A permanent surgical marker is commonly used in clinical practice. However, it is messy and fades quickly. Patch map is a clean, patient-friendly and durable method.

Declaration of patient consent

Patient’s consent not required as identity is not disclosed or compromised.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. , , , , , , et al. European Society of Contact Dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing-Recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73:195-221.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. , , . Allergic Contact Dermatitis In: , , , eds. Dermatology (4th ed.). In: editors p. China: Elsevier; . p. 242-261.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , , . Marking patch tests sites: Description of a practical, clean, durable and inexpensive method. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;49:284-6.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , . Contact allergy to 2-hydroxy-5-tert-butyl benzylalcohol and 2,6-bis(hydroxymethyl)—4-tert-butylphenol, components of a phenolic resin used in marking pens. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;31:154-6.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. , . Allergy to patch test marking ink. Contact Dermatitis. 1994;30:182-3.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. . Procedure pearl: Patch testing, a light in the dark. Dermatitis. 2007;18:57-8.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. , . Practical aspects of patch testing In: , , eds. Fisher’s Contact Dermatitis (6th ed.). In: editors p. Hamilton, Ontario: BC Decker Inc; . p. 11-29.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. , , , . Patch test clinic start-up: From basics to pearls. Dermatitis. 2020;31:287-96.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. , . Using a nonadherent transparent scribing sheet: Tip for allergen location in pediatric contact dermatitis testing. Pediatr Dermatol. 2014;31:410-1.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. , , . Patch testing tools of the trade: Techniques for marking and identifying patch application sites. J Dermatol Nurses Assoc. 2015;7:104-6.
    [Google Scholar]
Show Sections