Comparison of the Multi-Test II and ComforTen allergy skin test devices
Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 31, 2026

Application of Biochip Microfluidic Technology to Detect Serum Allergen-specific Immunoglobulin E (sIgE)
Published on: April 21, 2019
Mark S Dykewicz1, Kevin T Dooms, Deborah L Chassaing
1Section of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Division of Immunobiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, Missouri, USA. dykewicz@wfubmc.edu
Abstract:
The performance of different devices for percutaneous allergy skin testing may have statistically and clinically significant differences. We compared two multihead allergy skin testing devices: Multi-Test II (Lincoln Diagnostics, Decatur, IL) and ComforTen (Hollister-Stier Laboratories, Spokane, WA). Skin tests with glycerinated histamine (6 mg/mL base) and glycerinated saline were applied to 30 adults using Multi-Test II on the volar surface of one forearm and ComforTen on the opposite forearm. For each device, data were obtained from 150 histamine sites and 90 negative control sites. Defining a positive result using cutoff wheal sizes of either 5-mm versus 3-mm inclusive, respective results for Multi-Test II sensitivity were 97% versus 100% with specificity of 100% versus 97%, whereas corresponding ComforTen sensitivity increased from 26 to 82% with specificity of 100% versus 99%. For Multi-Test II versus ComforTen, histamine mean (SD) wheal sizes were 7.47 (1.72) mm versus 3.93 (1.59) mm (p = 0.00), mean coefficients of variation (CV) were 23.0% versus 40.5%, and pooled estimates of variance were 1.42 versus 1.29. Comparing results at different test head positions, there was no statistically significant variation in histamine wheal sizes with either device. Multi-Test II had notably lower CV, greater wheal size, and higher sensitivity but similar specificity to ComforTen. Consequently, Multi-Test II had superior performance at both 3- and 5-mm wheal cutoffs. Because ComforTen had a low sensitivity at the 3-mm and, particularly, at the 5-mm wheal cutoff, skin testing with this device might result in underdiagnosis of allergy using either cutoff.
More Related Videos
06:34A Component-resolved Diagnostic Approach for a Study on Grass Pollen Allergens in Chinese Southerners with Allergic Rhinitis and/or Asthma
Published on: June 4, 2017
06:31Precision Implementation of Minimal Erythema Dose (MED) Testing to Assess Individual Variation in Human Inflammatory Response
Published on: October 3, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Multiple Comparison Tests
It would be easy to compare two samples using a significance alpha level of 0.05. In other words, there is only one sample pair to be compared. However, it would be difficult to identify a significantly different sample if the number...
Automated Microbial Diagnostics