Skin Testing for Allergic Rhinitis: A Health Technology Assessment.

Q1 Medicine Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series Pub Date : 2016-05-01 eCollection Date: 2016-01-01
{"title":"Skin Testing for Allergic Rhinitis: A Health Technology Assessment.","authors":"","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Allergic rhinitis is the most common type of allergy worldwide. The accuracy of skin testing for allergic rhinitis is still debated. This health technology assessment had two objectives: to determine the diagnostic accuracy of skin-prick and intradermal testing in patients with suspected allergic rhinitis and to estimate the costs to the Ontario health system of skin testing for allergic rhinitis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched All Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, CRD Health Technology Assessment Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and NHS Economic Evaluation Database for studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of skin-prick and intradermal testing for allergic rhinitis using nasal provocation as the reference standard. For the clinical evidence review, data extraction and quality assessment were performed using the QUADAS-2 tool. We used the bivariate random-effects model for meta-analysis. For the economic evidence review, we assessed studies using a modified checklist developed by the (United Kingdom) National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. We estimated the annual cost of skin testing for allergic rhinitis in Ontario for 2015 to 2017 using provincial data on testing volumes and costs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We meta-analyzed seven studies with a total of 430 patients that assessed the accuracy of skin-prick testing. The pooled pair of sensitivity and specificity for skin-prick testing was 85% and 77%, respectively. We did not perform a meta-analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of intradermal testing due to the small number of studies (n = 4). Of these, two evaluated the accuracy of intradermal testing in confirming negative skin-prick testing results, with sensitivity ranging from 27% to 50% and specificity ranging from 60% to 100%. The other two studies evaluated the accuracy of intradermal testing as a stand-alone tool for diagnosing allergic rhinitis, with sensitivity ranging from 60% to 79% and specificity ranging from 68% to 69%. We estimated the budget impact of continuing to publicly fund skin testing for allergic rhinitis in Ontario to be between $2.5 million and $3.0 million per year.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Skin-prick testing is moderately accurate in identifying subjects with or without allergic rhinitis. The diagnostic accuracy of intradermal testing could not be well established from this review. Our best estimate is that publicly funding skin testing for allergic rhinitis costs the Ontario government approximately $2.5 million to $3.0 million per year.</p>","PeriodicalId":39160,"journal":{"name":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","volume":"16 10","pages":"1-45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4897001/pdf/ohtas-16-1.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2016/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Allergic rhinitis is the most common type of allergy worldwide. The accuracy of skin testing for allergic rhinitis is still debated. This health technology assessment had two objectives: to determine the diagnostic accuracy of skin-prick and intradermal testing in patients with suspected allergic rhinitis and to estimate the costs to the Ontario health system of skin testing for allergic rhinitis.

Methods: We searched All Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, CRD Health Technology Assessment Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and NHS Economic Evaluation Database for studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of skin-prick and intradermal testing for allergic rhinitis using nasal provocation as the reference standard. For the clinical evidence review, data extraction and quality assessment were performed using the QUADAS-2 tool. We used the bivariate random-effects model for meta-analysis. For the economic evidence review, we assessed studies using a modified checklist developed by the (United Kingdom) National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. We estimated the annual cost of skin testing for allergic rhinitis in Ontario for 2015 to 2017 using provincial data on testing volumes and costs.

Results: We meta-analyzed seven studies with a total of 430 patients that assessed the accuracy of skin-prick testing. The pooled pair of sensitivity and specificity for skin-prick testing was 85% and 77%, respectively. We did not perform a meta-analysis for the diagnostic accuracy of intradermal testing due to the small number of studies (n = 4). Of these, two evaluated the accuracy of intradermal testing in confirming negative skin-prick testing results, with sensitivity ranging from 27% to 50% and specificity ranging from 60% to 100%. The other two studies evaluated the accuracy of intradermal testing as a stand-alone tool for diagnosing allergic rhinitis, with sensitivity ranging from 60% to 79% and specificity ranging from 68% to 69%. We estimated the budget impact of continuing to publicly fund skin testing for allergic rhinitis in Ontario to be between $2.5 million and $3.0 million per year.

Conclusions: Skin-prick testing is moderately accurate in identifying subjects with or without allergic rhinitis. The diagnostic accuracy of intradermal testing could not be well established from this review. Our best estimate is that publicly funding skin testing for allergic rhinitis costs the Ontario government approximately $2.5 million to $3.0 million per year.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
过敏性鼻炎的皮肤试验:一项健康技术评估。
背景:变应性鼻炎是世界上最常见的过敏类型。皮肤试验对过敏性鼻炎的准确性仍有争议。这项卫生技术评估有两个目的:确定皮肤穿刺和皮内试验对疑似变应性鼻炎患者的诊断准确性,并估计安大略省卫生系统对变应性鼻炎进行皮肤试验的成本。方法:我们检索了所有Ovid MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane系统评价数据库、疗效评价摘要数据库、CRD卫生技术评价数据库、Cochrane中央对照试验注册库和NHS经济评价数据库,以鼻刺激为参考标准评估皮肤穿刺和皮内试验对变应性鼻炎诊断准确性的研究。对于临床证据审查,使用QUADAS-2工具进行数据提取和质量评估。我们使用双变量随机效应模型进行meta分析。对于经济证据的审查,我们使用由(联合王国)国家健康和护理卓越研究所开发的修订清单对研究进行评估。我们使用省级测试量和成本数据估算了安大略省2015年至2017年过敏性鼻炎皮肤测试的年度成本。结果:我们荟萃分析了7项研究,共430例患者,评估了皮肤点刺试验的准确性。皮肤点刺试验的敏感性和特异性分别为85%和77%。由于研究数量较少(n = 4),我们没有对皮内试验的诊断准确性进行荟萃分析。其中,两项研究评估了皮内试验在确认皮肤点刺试验阴性结果方面的准确性,敏感性为27%至50%,特异性为60%至100%。另外两项研究评估了皮内检测作为诊断变应性鼻炎的独立工具的准确性,其敏感性为60%至79%,特异性为68%至69%。我们估计,安大略继续公开资助过敏性鼻炎皮肤测试的预算影响在每年250万至300万美元之间。结论:皮肤点刺试验在鉴别是否有变应性鼻炎方面具有中等的准确性。皮内检查的诊断准确性不能从这篇综述中得到很好的证实。我们最好的估计是,安大略省政府每年为过敏性鼻炎的皮肤测试提供的公共资金约为250万至300万美元。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series
Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Level 2 Polysomnography for the Diagnosis of Sleep Disorders: A Health Technology Assessment. Pelvic Floor Muscle Training for Stress Urinary Incontinence, Fecal Incontinence, and Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Health Technology Assessment. Fractional Exhaled Nitric Oxide Testing for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma: a Health Technology Assessment. Sucrose Octasulfate-Impregnated Dressings for Adults With Difficult-to-Heal Noninfected Diabetic Foot Ulcers and Difficult-to-Heal Noninfected Venous Leg Ulcers: A Health Technology Assessment. Robotic-Assisted Surgery for Rectal Cancer: An Expedited Summary of the Clinical Evidence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1