Resource saving in patch test procedure

Authors

  • Pacharee Iamtharachai DEPARTMENT OF DERMATOLOGY, MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY, BANGKOK, THAILAND
  • Monthathip Bunyavaree DEPARTMENT OF DERMATOLOGY, MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY, BANGKOK, THAILAND
  • Bordeesuda Suiwongsa PHARMACY DEPARTMENT, FACULTY OF MEDICINE SIRIRAJ HOSPITAL, MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY, BANGKOK, THAILAND
  • Pranee Kasemsarn DEPARTMENT OF DERMATOLOGY, MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY, BANGKOK, THAILAND
  • Waranya Boonchai DEPARTMENT OF DERMATOLOGY, MAHIDOL UNIVERSITY, BANGKOK, THAILAND

Keywords:

marking ink, marking pens, plaster, adhesive, patch testing

Abstract

Background: Skin markers and adhesive tapes both were necessary in performing patch testing to identify the actual location of the allergens and stabilize the allergen chambers.

Objective: We aimed to compare the durable of in-house marking ink with commercially marking pens used in patch testing, and the attachment of Finn Chamber® on Scanpor® tape with or without additional 3M™ Micropore™ tape adhesion.

Materials and Methods: We randomly divided the back of 30 patients attended Siriraj contact dermatitis clinic for patch testing during April to September 2013. In-house marking ink was applied on one side and commercially marking pens, either Chemo Skin Marker-Regular™ or AllergEAZE® Skin Marker were applied on another side. The visibilities of the markers were graded into 4 levels by blinded dermatologist on Day 4 (D4). The attachment of Finn Chamber® with or without additional 3M™Micropore™ tape adhesion were evaluated on Day 2 (D2).

Results: Commercially marking pens showed 100% visibility in 13 cases, 12 cases with 50-99% visibility, and 5 cases with <50% visibility. In-house marking ink showed 100% visibility in 22 cases and 50-99% visibility in 8 cases. The persistent of in-house marking ink was better than the commercially marking pens with a statistical significance (p-value = 0.005). Finn Chamber® attachment was not statistically significant difference between with or without additional 3M™ Micropore™ tape adhesion (p-value=0.5).

Conclusion: Our in-house marking ink is durable and provided cost-effectiveness more than the commercially available marking pens. No additional 3M™ Micropore™ tape usage are needed in patch testing process due to similar Finn Chamber® attachment compare with Finn Chamber® on Scanpor® tape alone.

References

Lachapelle JM, Maibach HI. Patch testing Methodology. In: Lachapelle JM, Maibach HI, editors. Patch Testing and Prick Testing: A Practical Guide. 2nd ed. Heidelberg: Springer; 2009. p. 33-70.

Wilson ML, Elston DM, Mowad CM. The comparative substantivity of three marking pens used in patch testing. Dermatitis 2008;19:343-4.

Le Coz CJ, Muller B, Donnay C. Marking patch tests sites: description of a practical, clean, durable and inexpensive method. Contact Dermatitis 2003;49:284-6.

Downloads

Published

2026-06-05

How to Cite

Iamtharachai, P., Bunyavaree, M., Suiwongsa, B., Kasemsarn, P., & Boonchai, W. (2026). Resource saving in patch test procedure. Thai Journal of Dermatology, 30(3), 153–158. retrieved from https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/TJD/article/view/282683

Issue

Vol. 30 No. 3 (2014): July - September

Section

Original articles

License

Copyright (c) 2014 Thai Journal of Dermatology

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

เนื้อหาและข้อมูลในบทความที่ลงตีพิมพ์ในวารสารโรคผิวหนัง ถือเป็นข้อคิดเห็นและความรับผิดชอบของผู้เขียนบทความโดยตรงซึ่งกองบรรณาธิการวารสาร ไม่จำเป็นต้องเห็นด้วย หรือร่วมรับผิดชอบใดๆ

บทความ ข้อมูล เนื้อหา รูปภาพ ฯลฯ ที่ได้รับการตีพิมพ์ในวารสารโรคผิวหนัง ถือเป็นลิขสิทธิ์ของวารสารฯ หากบุคคลหรือหน่วยงานใดต้องการนำทั้งหมดหรือส่วนหนึ่งส่วนใดไปเผยแพร่ต่อหรือเพื่อกระทำการใดๆ จะต้องได้รับอนุญาตเป็นลายลักอักษรจากบรรณาธิการวารสารโรคผิวหนังก่อนเท่านั้น