Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35113364›Full record

ReviewClinical reviews in allergy & immunology2022

The Role of Patch Testing in Evaluating Delayed Hypersensitivity Reactions to Medications.

Carina M Woodruff, Nina Botto

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Wine-induced fixed drug eruption.JAAD case reports · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Emulgel withPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Towards standardized skin testing for drug-induced allergic reactions.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Tools for Etiologic Diagnosis of Drug-Induced Allergic Conditions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Carina M WoodruffUniversity of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. carina.woodruff@ucsf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0594-8779
Nina BottoUniversity of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
University of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Confirming drug imputability is an important step in the management of cutaneous adverse drug reactions (CADR). Re-challenge is inconvenient and in many cases life threatening. We review the literature on ideal patch testing technique for specific CADRs. Testing should be performed approximately 3 months after the resolution of the eruption using standard patch testing techniques. Commercially available patch test preparations are available for a minority of drugs, so in most cases, testing should be performed with the drug at various recommended concentrations and in different vehicles. Testing to all known excipients, such as dyes, vehicles and preservatives is also important. Immunosuppressive medications should be discontinued or down titrated to the lowest tolerable dose to decrease the risk of false negative reactions. We provide an overview of expert recommendations and extant evidence on the utility of patch testing for identifying the culprit drug in common CADRs and for specific drug or drug classes. Overall, there appears to be significant variability in the patch test positivity of different drugs, which is likely the result of factors intrinsic to the drug such as dermal absorption (as a function of lipophilicity and molecular size) and whether the drug itself or a downstream metabolite is implicated in the immune reaction. Drugs with high patch test positivity rates include beta-lactam antibiotics, aromatic anticonvulsants, phenytoin, and corticosteroids, among others. Patch testing positivity varies both as a function of the drug and type of CADR. The sum of the evidence suggests that patch testing in the setting of morbilliform eruptions, fixed drug eruption, acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis, and possibly also drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome, photoallergic and eczematous reactions may be worthwhile, although utility of testing may vary on the specific drug in question for the eruption. It appears to be of limited utility and is not recommended in the setting of other complex CADR, such as SJS/TEN and leukocytoclastic vasculitis.

Indexed as

Drug EruptionsDrug HypersensitivityExanthemaHypersensitivity, DelayedAnticonvulsantsHumansPatch TestsAnticonvulsantsCutaneous adverse drug reactionsDelayed hypersensitivity reactionsPatch testing

Identifiers

PMID35113364
PMCPMC9156465
OpenAlexW4210351506

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.