SynthesisDrug safety2009
Patch testing for the diagnosis of anticonvulsant hypersensitivity syndrome: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Drug safety, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.
- In vitro testing for the diagnosis of anticonvulsant hypersensitivity syndrome: a systematic review.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2009Pooled it
- Drug hypersensitivity reactions in children in clinical practice: A WAO Statement.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2025Review
- Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions in Patients with Cystic Fibrosis: Potential Value of the Lymphocyte Toxicity Assay to Assess Risk.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2023Article
- A posteriori diagnosis of DRESS syndrome induced by diazoxide in a patient with an insulinoma: a case report and review of the literature.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- The Role of Patch Testing in Evaluating Delayed Hypersensitivity Reactions to Medications.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2022Review
- Drug-Induced Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions: Insights Into Clinical Presentation, Immunopathogenesis, Diagnostic Methods, Treatment, and Pharmacogenomics.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
- Pediatric Drug Hypersensitivity.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2019Review
- Prevalence and Clinical Features of Drug Reactions With Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms Syndrome Caused by Antituberculosis Drugs: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Allergy, asthma & immunology research · 2019Article
- Cutaneous Adverse Drug Reactions in Dogs Treated with Antiepileptic Drugs.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2016Article
- Predictive value of the lymphocyte toxicity assay in the diagnosis of drug hypersensitivity syndrome.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2010Article
- Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms: An Update and Review of Recent Literature.Indian journal of dermatologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anticonvulsant hypersensitivity syndrome (AHS), also known by the other names drug rash (reaction) with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) and drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS), is a rare and potentially fatal reaction that occurs in susceptible patients after exposure to certain drugs, including aromatic anticonvulsants. Because of its ill-defined clinical picture and resemblance to other diseases, the diagnosis of AHS is often difficult and requires a safe and reliable diagnostic test. The skin patch test has been proven to be very useful for prediction and diagnosis of some types of hypersensitivity reactions such as delayed drug eruptions to beta-lactam antibacterials. However, the diagnostic value of patch testing for AHS is yet to be determined and its negative predictive values (NPVs) and positive predictive values (PPVs) are still unknown. This systematic review attempts to evaluate the usefulness of patch tests in the diagnosis of AHS and to examine different technical aspects of patch testing that may contribute to its performance. We included studies in which aromatic anticonvulsant drugs are the likely causes of the hypersensitivity reaction. Analysis of original publications from 1950 to August 2008 and cited in PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE has revealed contradictory findings, possibly due mainly to the use of unstandardized methods. Numerous factors have been suggested to affect the final result of the test, including the following: type of drug tested; concentration of drug and vehicle used; timing of the test after exposure; and the clinical picture of the reaction. The PPV of the test in optimal conditions was as high as 80-90% depending on the drug tested. On the other hand, this value is around 10-20% in many other published studies. Although patch testing may be a useful diagnostic test for AHS, accurate determination of its sensitivity and specificity is yet to be achievable due to the lack of a gold standard test against which the performance of patch testing can be measured. Its PPV appears to be higher than its NPV, a matter that necessitates the use of other confirmatory tests in case of negative patch tests (e.g. careful systemic rechallenge). The benefit of testing appears to be maximal with certain drugs (i.e. carbamazepine and phenytoin) and for specific clinical manifestations (strong reactions). It should be performed 2-6 months after recovery from the date of the ADR for best results, with adequate vehicle control.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.