This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (48)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Pathology & Laboratory Medicine  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Martina M. A. Kozel, MD; Jan R. Mekkes, MD; Patrick M. M. Bossuyt, PhD; Jan D. Bos, MD, PhD

Arch Dermatol. 1998;134:1575-1580.

Objective  To assess the value of extensive laboratory screening for the identification of causes in patients with chronic urticaria and/or angioedema.

Design  In a prospective study involving 220 patients, 2 diagnostic strategies were compared: the combination of detailed history taking and limited laboratory investigations vs detailed history taking and extensive laboratory screening. The results of the extensive screening program were initially kept secret from the patients and the physicians. Later, all results were disclosed, and an investigation was undertaken to find out whether this information changed the initial diagnosis. The patients were followed up for 1 year to evaluate the results of interventions and to detect latent causes.

Setting  The study was performed in the outpatient department of a secondary and tertiary care center with institutional practice.

Patients  A total of 238 consecutive new patients with chronic urticaria and/or angioedema edema were referred; 18 of them refused participation. One patient was unavailable for follow-up.

Main Outcome Measure  The difference in the number of identified causes between both approaches and the nature of the causes that would have been missed by omitting extensive laboratory screening.

Results  With a questionnaire and the limited laboratory tests, a cause was found in 45.9% of the patients, compared with 52.7% with the questionnaire and the extended screening program. Except for one parasitic infection, missed diagnoses were mainly adverse reactions to drugs or food detected by standard elimination procedures, not by laboratory investigations.

Conclusion  Routine laboratory screening did not contribute substantially to the diagnosis of chronic urticaria or to the detection of underlying disorders.

From the Departments of Dermatology (Drs Kozel, Mekkes, and Bos) and Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Dr Bossuyt), Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Archives of Dermatology Reader's Choice: Continuing Medical Education
Arch Dermatol. 1998;134(12):1640-1641.
FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Drug-induced cutaneous pathology
Ramdial and Naidoo
J. Clin. Pathol. 2009;62:493-504.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Finding the Cause of Chronic Urticaria
Journal Watch Dermatology 1999;1999:10-10.
FULL TEXT  

Is Extensive Testing Necessary for Patients with Chronic Urticaria?
JWatch General 1999;1999:4-4.
FULL TEXT