Priktest af patienter med høfeber i almen praksis sammenlignet med i specialambulatorium
Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Standard
Priktest af patienter med høfeber i almen praksis sammenlignet med i specialambulatorium. / Grinsted, Per; Vach, Kirstin; Kragstrup, Jakob; Bindslev-Jensen, Carsten.
I: Ugeskrift for Laeger, Bind 168, Nr. 45, 06.11.2006, s. 3903-3905.Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › fagfællebedømt
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Priktest af patienter med høfeber i almen praksis sammenlignet med i specialambulatorium
AU - Grinsted, Per
AU - Vach, Kirstin
AU - Kragstrup, Jakob
AU - Bindslev-Jensen, Carsten
PY - 2006/11/6
Y1 - 2006/11/6
N2 - Introduction: The aim of our study was to assess whether general practitioners and their staff (practices) who had attended a short CME course with technical instruction in the skin prick test could diagnose and treat unselected patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis at the same quality level as the allergy outpatient clinic. Material and methods: We performed a multicentre study with the participation of 38 general practices and the Allergy Centre at Odense University Hospital (OUH). After a two-day course for the general practitioner and his practice staff, every practice performed a skin prick test on 10 consecutive adult patients with symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis during the spring and summer. A standardised questionnaire was also filled in and sent to the Allergy Centre, where the patient subsequently had another skin prick test carried out. The results of the tests were determined in duplicate and then compared. Results: No significant differences in the quality of the skin prick test for 10 allergens or histamine control were found between the general practice and the Allergy Centre. Discordant results were found in 9%, i.e., a positive result either at the practice or the Allergy Centre, but not at both. Conclusion: After a training course, general practitioners and their staff are fully able to perform and validate skin prick tests for inhalation allergens.
AB - Introduction: The aim of our study was to assess whether general practitioners and their staff (practices) who had attended a short CME course with technical instruction in the skin prick test could diagnose and treat unselected patients with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis at the same quality level as the allergy outpatient clinic. Material and methods: We performed a multicentre study with the participation of 38 general practices and the Allergy Centre at Odense University Hospital (OUH). After a two-day course for the general practitioner and his practice staff, every practice performed a skin prick test on 10 consecutive adult patients with symptoms of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis during the spring and summer. A standardised questionnaire was also filled in and sent to the Allergy Centre, where the patient subsequently had another skin prick test carried out. The results of the tests were determined in duplicate and then compared. Results: No significant differences in the quality of the skin prick test for 10 allergens or histamine control were found between the general practice and the Allergy Centre. Discordant results were found in 9%, i.e., a positive result either at the practice or the Allergy Centre, but not at both. Conclusion: After a training course, general practitioners and their staff are fully able to perform and validate skin prick tests for inhalation allergens.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33750966122&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Tidsskriftartikel
C2 - 17118252
AN - SCOPUS:33750966122
VL - 168
SP - 3903
EP - 3905
JO - Ugeskrift for Laeger
JF - Ugeskrift for Laeger
SN - 0041-5782
IS - 45
ER -
ID: 324141066