Abstract
Over the years, there have been many procedures that either have no diagnostic value for any allergic disease or are inappropriate for the diagnosis and treatment of allergy. These procedures fall into the category of unproven diagnostic and therapeutic techniques for allergy. Unfortunately, there are a very limited number of well-controlled investigations examining these various methods. While these tests may provide a superficial appearance of valid test, they have not been shown by controlled clinical trials to be reliable in the diagnosis and treatment of any allergic diseases. After reviewing the data, it is very clear that there is a need for more well-controlled scientific investigations examining all of these techniques. Until that data becomes available for scientific review and critique, these unproven diagnostic and therapeutic techniques should not be used in the evaluation of patients with suspected allergic disease.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References and Recommended Reading
Bryan MP, Bryan WTP: Cytologic diagnosis of allergic disorders. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1974, 7:637–666.
Terr AI: The cytotocxic test. West J Med 1983, 139:702–703.
Ulett GA, Perry SG: Cytotoxic testing and leukocyte increase: an index of food sensitivity. II. Coffee and tobacco. Ann Allergy 1975, 34:150–160.
Updegraff TR: Food allergy and cytotoxic test. Ear Nose Throat J 1977, 56:450–459.
Boyles JH: The validity of using cytotoxic food test in clinical allergy. Ear Nose Throat J 1977, 56:168–173.
Chambers VV, Hudson BH, Glaser J: A study of the reactions of human polymorphonuclear leukocytes to various antigens. J Allergy 1958, 29:93–102.
Lieberman P, Crawford L, Bjelland J, et al.: Controlled study of the cytotoxic food test. JAMA 1975, 231:728–730.
Benson TE, Arkins JA: Cytotoxic testing for food allergy: Evaluations of reproducibility and correlation. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1976, 58:471–476.
Lehman CW: The leukocytic food allergy test: A study of its reliability and reproducibility: effect of diet and sublingual food drops on this test. Ann Allergy 1980, 45:150–158.
American Academy of Allergy and Immunology: Position statements-controversial techniques. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1981, 67:333–338. The Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology has published a series of position statements over the years. This particular statement summarizes various controversial techniques that have been used in the past to evaluate patients with suspected allergic disease. This specific document states that there is no proof that cytotoxic testing is effective for the diagnosis of food and inhalant allergy.
Kay AB, Lessof MH: Allergy. Conventional and alternative concepts. A report of the Royal College of Physicians Committee on Clinical Immunology and Allergy. Clin Exp Allergy 1992, 22:1–44.
Terr AI: Unconventional theories and unproved methods in allergy. In Allergy: Principles and Practice. Edited by Middleton E, Reed CE, Ellis EF, et al. St. Louis: Mosby; 1998:1235–1249.
Jewett DL, Fein G, Greenberg MH: A double-blind study of symptom provocation to determine food sensitivity. N Engl J Med 1990, 323:429–433. This is a very interesting and useful investigation that evaluates the provocation-neutralization technique. The investigators demonstrated that this technique could not determine the difference between active and placebo diagnostic injections and that the patients undergoing this therapy had equivalent responses to placebo and active therapies.
Teuber SS, Vogt PJ: An unproven technique with potentially fatal outcome: provocation/neutralization in a patient with systemic mastocytosis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1999, 82:61–65.
American Academy of Allergy and Immunology: Position statements: clinical ecology. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1986, 78:269–271.
Krop J, Lewith GT, Gziut W, Radulescu CJ: A double blind, randomized, controlled investigation of electrodermal testing in the diagnosis of allergies. J Altern Complement Med 1997, 3:241–248.
Lewith GT, Kenyon JN, Broomfield J, et al.: Is electrodermal testing as effective as skin prick tests for diagnosing allergies? Br Med J 2001, 322:131–134. This is one of the few up-to-date references available for this chapter. The investigators implemented a well-controlled study design to evaluate the usefulness of electrodermal skin testing for allergic disease. The investigators concluded that electrodermal testing should not be used to diagnose environmental allergies. This is a very solid investigation and well worth the read.
Garrow JS: Kinesiology and food allergy. Br Med J 1988, 296:1573–1574.
Triano JJ: Muscle strength testing as a diagnostic screen for supplemental nutrition therapy: a blind study. J Manipulative and Physiol Ther 1982, 5:179–182.
Haas M, Peterson D, Hoyer D, Ross G: Muscle testing response to provocative vertebral challenge and spinal manipulation: a randomized controlled trial of construct validity. J Manipulative and Physiol Ther 1994, 17:141–148.
Kenney JJ, Clemens R, Forsythe KD: Applied kinesiology unreliable for assessing nutrient status. J Am Diet Assoc 1988, 88:698–704.
Jenkins M, Vickers A: Unreliability of IgE/IgG4 antibody testing as a diagnostic tool in food intolerance. Clin Exp Allergy 1998, 28:1526–1529.
Chatchatee P, Jarvinen KM, Bardina L, et al.: Identification of IgE- and IgG-binding epitopes on alpha(s1)-casein: differences in patients with persistent and transient cow’s milk allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2001, 107:379–383.
Szabo I, Eigenmann PA: Allergenicity of major cow’s milk and peanut proteins determined by IgE and IgG immunoblotting. Allergy 2000, 55:42–49.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
James, J.M. Unproven diagnostic and therapeutic techniques. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2, 87–91 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11882-002-0045-7
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11882-002-0045-7