SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • alternative medicine;
  • cytotoxic test;
  • hair–analysis;
  • iridology;
  • kinesiology

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Specific IgG-antibodies
  4. Hair-analysis
  5. Cytotoxic test
  6. Kinesiology
  7. Iridology
  8. Electrodermal testing
  9. Miscellaneous
  10. Conclusions
  11. References

A considerable body of literature on therapeutic aspects of complementary and alternative medicine has been published in recent years, but little is known on diagnostic procedures. This short review lists complementary and alternative diagnostic procedures for the diagnosis of allergic diseases and presents an assessment of their usefulness for the daily practice. The review of the literature revealed that neither the determination of specific immunoglobulin G-antibodies in serum, the hair-analysis, the cytotoxic test, kinesiology, iridology, or electrodermal testing represent useful tests for the daily practice. To date, no complementary or alternative diagnostic procedure can be recommended as a meaningful element in the diagnostic work-up of allergic diseases. This is especially true for food allergy: properly performed oral food challenges still represent the gold standard for implementing specific diets in food allergic individuals. Ineffective diagnostic approaches may be costly for the consumer and delay appropriate therapy.

Although a considerable body of literature on therapeutic aspects of complementary and alternative medicine has been published during the last years, little is known about diagnostic procedures in allergic diseases (1, 2, 3). Several unconventional methods have been said to be useful for the diagnostic work-up of food allergy or even superior to conventional methods. This short review aims to list complementary and alternative diagnostic procedures for the diagnosis of immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated allergic diseases (4) currently on the market and to assess their usefulness for the daily practice.

Specific IgG-antibodies

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Specific IgG-antibodies
  4. Hair-analysis
  5. Cytotoxic test
  6. Kinesiology
  7. Iridology
  8. Electrodermal testing
  9. Miscellaneous
  10. Conclusions
  11. References

The determination of specific IgG-antibodies in serum does not correspond with oral food challenges (5). In cow's milk intolerance proved by oral challenge, no increased IgG-antibodies could be found (6). IgG milk-specific antibody levels are similar in children with early- and late-type clinical reactions (7). Furthermore, there is no evidence that IgG subclasses (8) or the IgE/IgG4 antibody ratio (9) are reliable diagnostic tools. A study of 27 children with hen's egg allergy found that children with a positive challenge tended to have a higher IgE/IgG4 ratio and a higher IgG1/IgG4 ratio than those with a negative challenge test, but concluded that oral provocations are still necessary to confirm diagnosis of food allergy (10). A large study in 601 newborns, infants, children and adults showed that the determination of IgA and IgM antibodies did not contribute to the diagnosis of food allergy (11). Since IgG-antibodies to common dietary antigens can be detected in health and disease (12), the determination of food-specific IgG is of no clinical relevance (13) and should not be part of the diagnostic work-up of food allergy.

Hair-analysis

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Specific IgG-antibodies
  4. Hair-analysis
  5. Cytotoxic test
  6. Kinesiology
  7. Iridology
  8. Electrodermal testing
  9. Miscellaneous
  10. Conclusions
  11. References

While hair analysis has important uses in screening for metal intoxication, data do not support applications such as nutritional deficiencies or chronic diseases (14). In a British study, nine individuals proven to be fish allergic by oral provocations and nine healthy controls were investigated; blood was sent under two different names to several laboratories providing alternative methods including hair analysis. It could be shown that the majority of laboratories did not recognize the fish allergic patients; however, several other allergies were diagnosed for which no clinical indication could be found (15). In another study, hair samples of two healthy teenagers were sent under assumed names to 13 commercial laboratories performing multimineral hair analysis; the reported levels of most minerals varied considerably between identical samples, and six laboratories recommended food supplements, but the types and amounts varied widely (16). On an individual basis, the usefulness of hair analysis is restricted, with limitations in particular for evaluation of mineral nutritional status (17).

Cytotoxic test

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Specific IgG-antibodies
  4. Hair-analysis
  5. Cytotoxic test
  6. Kinesiology
  7. Iridology
  8. Electrodermal testing
  9. Miscellaneous
  10. Conclusions
  11. References

The (leucocyte) cytotoxic test for food allergy is a blood test in which changes in the morphology of leucocytes are investigated under the microscope after adding antigen (up to 180 different food allergens per test) (18, 19). The test is time-consuming and dependent on subjective interpretation (20). Nine atopic and five nonatopic patients with or without food allergy were studied in a double-blind fashion with six determinations for each of 10 food antigens: reproducibility and correlation with clinical allergy was insufficient (21). Similar negative findings were reported in other large studies investigating aliquots blood samples in duplicate; the results fluctuated considerably from day to day and were without relation to the foods ingested (20, 22, 23). The cytotoxic test has no rational scientific basis (24), offers no reliable help in establishing the diagnosis of food allergy (25), especially for patients with multiple food allergies (26).

Kinesiology

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Specific IgG-antibodies
  4. Hair-analysis
  5. Cytotoxic test
  6. Kinesiology
  7. Iridology
  8. Electrodermal testing
  9. Miscellaneous
  10. Conclusions
  11. References

In this test, the offended allergens are prepared in stoppered neutral glass bottles and the patient holds the bottle in one hand; a positive test is indicated by decrease in muscle power in the contra-lateral arm (27). While a noncontrolled pilot study claimed some value in the diagnosis of food allergy (28), a blinded study (performed in duplicate) in 20 patients, showed that the number of concordant results within duplicates was similar what would be expected by chance (27). A similar result was reported for patients with wasp venom allergy: kinesiology as a diagnostic tool was not more useful than random guessing (29). Applied kinesiology can also not be recommended for diagnosing nutritional intolerance (30).

Iridology

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Specific IgG-antibodies
  4. Hair-analysis
  5. Cytotoxic test
  6. Kinesiology
  7. Iridology
  8. Electrodermal testing
  9. Miscellaneous
  10. Conclusions
  11. References

A study of iridology demonstrated that the diagnosis of bronchial asthma could not be assisted by an iridological style analysis (31). A systematic review on iridology revealed that the validity of iridology as a diagnostic tool is not supported by scientific evaluations (32). The possibility of false positive and false negative may result in potentially harmful therapies or loss of valuable time for early treatment, which both represent serious problems (33). A Dutch study showed that the credence placed by doctors in iridology decreased after reading an empirical study presenting evidence against its value as a diagnostic aid (34).

Electrodermal testing

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Specific IgG-antibodies
  4. Hair-analysis
  5. Cytotoxic test
  6. Kinesiology
  7. Iridology
  8. Electrodermal testing
  9. Miscellaneous
  10. Conclusions
  11. References

Although promoted in some studies (35), electrodermal testing (Vega), a technique similar to electro acupuncture according to Dr Voll (36), cannot be recommended for the diagnosis of food allergy, since it is without established scientific basis and may therefore lead to inappropriate treatment (37, 38, 39). In a double-blind randomized block design study, 15 volunteers with a positive result and 15 volunteers with a negative result on a previous skin prick test to house dust mite or cat dander were subjected to electrodermal testing; electrodermal testing could not distinguish between atopic and nonatopic participants (40). Another double-blind, placebo-controlled study in 72 allergic patients and 28 healthy volunteers on the diagnostic accuracy confirmed the lack of correlation to respiratory allergy (41).

Miscellaneous

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Specific IgG-antibodies
  4. Hair-analysis
  5. Cytotoxic test
  6. Kinesiology
  7. Iridology
  8. Electrodermal testing
  9. Miscellaneous
  10. Conclusions
  11. References

The sublingual provocative food testing was not able to differentiate between placebo and food drops (42, 43, 44) and may even be potentially fatal in patients with systemic mastocytosis (45).

Conclusions

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Specific IgG-antibodies
  4. Hair-analysis
  5. Cytotoxic test
  6. Kinesiology
  7. Iridology
  8. Electrodermal testing
  9. Miscellaneous
  10. Conclusions
  11. References

To date there is no complementary or alternative diagnostic procedure, which can be recommended as a meaningful element in the diagnostic work-up of allergic diseases. This is especially true for food allergy: properly performed oral food challenges still represent the gold standard for implementing specific diets in food-allergic individuals. Ineffective diagnostic approaches may be costly for the consumer and delay appropriate therapy.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Specific IgG-antibodies
  4. Hair-analysis
  5. Cytotoxic test
  6. Kinesiology
  7. Iridology
  8. Electrodermal testing
  9. Miscellaneous
  10. Conclusions
  11. References
  • 1
    Reisman RE. American Academy of Allergy: position statements – controversial techniques. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1981;67: 333338.
  • 2
    Golbert TM. A review of controversial diagnostic and therapeutic techniques employed in allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1981;56: 170190.
  • 3
    Teuber SS, Porch-Curren C. Unproved diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to food allergy and intolerance. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol 2003;3: 217221.
  • 4
    Johansson SGO, O'B Hourihane J, Bousquet J, Bruijnzeel-Koomen C, Dreborg S, Haathela T, Kowalski ML, Mygind N, Ring J, van Cauwenberge P, van Hage-Hamsten M, Wüthrich B. A revised nomenclature for allergy. An EAACI position paper from the EAACI nomenclature task force. Allergy 2001;56: 813824.
  • 5
    Stiening H, Szczepanski R, Mühlendahl v KE, Kalveram C. Neurodermitis und Nahrungsmittelallergie. Klinische Relevanz von Testverfahren. Monatsschr Kinderheilkd 1990;138: 803807.
  • 6
    Burks AW, Williams LW, Casteel HB, Fiedorek SC, Connaughton CA. Antibody response to milk proteins in patients with milk-protein intolerance documented by challenge. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1990;85: 921927.
  • 7
    Firer MA, Hoskings CS, Hill DJ. Humoral immune response to cow's milk in children with cow's milk allergy. Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol 1987;84: 173177.
  • 8
    Kemeny DM, Urbanek R, Amlot PL, Ciclitira PJ, Richards D, Lessof MH. Sub-class of IgG in allergic disease I. IgG sub-class antibodies in immediate and non-immediate food allergy. Clin Allergy 1986;16: 571581.
  • 9
    Jenkins M, Vickers A. Unreliability of IgE/IgG4 antibody testing as a diagnostic tool in food intolerance. Clin Exp Allergy 1998;28: 15261529.
  • 10
    Lau S, Thiemeier M, Urbanek R, Kemeny M, Wahn U. Immediate hypersensitivity to ovalbumin in children with hen's egg white allergy. Eur J Pediatr 1988;147: 606608.
  • 11
    Bürgin-Wolff A, Signer E, Friess HM, Berger R, Birbaumer A, Just M. The diagnostic significance of antibodies to various cow's milk proteins (fluorescent immunosorbent test). Eur J Pediatr 1980;133: 1724.
  • 12
    Barnes RMR. IgG and IgA antibodies to dietary antigens in food allergy and intolerance. Clin Exp Allergy 1995;25(Suppl. 1):79.
  • 13
    Johansson SGO, Dannaeus A, Lilja G. The relevance of anti-food antibodies for the diagnosis of food allergy. Ann Allergy 1984;53: 665672.
  • 14
    Fletcher DJ. Hair analysis. Proven and problematic applications. Postgrad Med 1982;72: 7988.
  • 15
    Sethi TJ, Lessof MH, Kemeny DM, Lambourn E, Tobin S, Bradley A. How reliable are commercial allergy tests? Lancet 1987;i: 9294.
  • 16
    Barrett S. Commercial hair analysis – science or scam? J Amer Med Assoc 1985;254: 10411045.
  • 17
    Hambidge KM. Hair analysis: worthless for vitamins, limited for minerals. Am J Clin Nutr 1982;36: 943949.
  • 18
    Black AP. A new diagnostic method in allergic disease. Pediatrics 1956;17: 716724.
  • 19
    Bryan WTK, Bryan MP. The application of in vitro cytotoxic reactions to clinical diagnosis of food allergy. Laryngoscope 1960;70: 810824.
  • 20
    Lieberman P, Crawford L, Bjelland J, Connell B, Rice M. Controlled study of the cytotoxic food test. J Am Med Assoc 1975;231: 728730.
  • 21
    Benson TE, Arkins JA. Cytotoxic testing for food allergy: evaluation of reproducibility and correlation. J Allergy Clin Immunol 1976;58: 471476.
  • 22
    Chambers VV, Hudson BH, Glaser J. A study of the reactions of human polymorphonuclear leukocytes to various allergens. J Allergy 1958;29: 93102.
  • 23
    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: 150158.
  • 24
    Van Arsdel PP Jr, Larson EB. Diagnostic tests for patients with suspected allergic disease. Utility and limitations. Ann Int Med 1989;110: 304312.
  • 25
    Ruokonen J, Holopainen E, Palva T, Backman A. Secretory otitis media and allergy. With special reference to the cytotoxic leucocyte test. Allergy 1981;36: 5968.
  • 26
    King WP. Testing for food allergy: a statistical comparison of cytotoxic and intracutaneous tests. Laryngoscope 1978;88: 16491659.
  • 27
    Garron JS. Kinesiology and food allergy. BMJ 1988;296: 15731574.
  • 28
    Schmitt WH, Leisman G. Correlation of applied kinesiology muscle testing findings with serum immunoglobulin levels for food allergies. Int J Neurosci 1998;96: 237244.
  • 29
    Lüdtke R, Kunz B, Seeber N, Ring J. Test-Retest-Reliability and validity of the kinesiology muscle test. Complement Ther 2001;9: 141145.
  • 30
    Pothmann R, von Frankenberg S, Hoicke C, Weingarten H, Lüdtke R. Evaluation der klinisch angewandten Kinesiologie bei Nahrungsmittel-Unverträglichkeiten im Kindesalter. Forsch Komplementärmed Klass Naturheilkd 2001;8: 336344.
  • 31
    Buchanan TJ, Sutherland CJ, Strettle RJ, Terrell TJ, Pewsey A. An investigation of the relationship between anatomical features in the iris and systemic disease, with reference to iridology. Compl Ther Med 1996;4: 98102.
  • 32
    Ernst E. Iridology: a systematic review. Forsch Komplementärmed 1999;6: 79.
  • 33
    Ernst E. Iridology. Not useful and potentially harmful. Arch Ophthalmol 2000;118: 120121.
  • 34
    Knipschild P. Changing belief in iridology after an empirical study. BMJ 1989;299: 491492.
  • 35
    Krop J, Lewith GT, Gziut W, Radulescu C. A double blind, randomized, controlled investigation of electrodermal testing in the diagnosis of allergies. J Altern Complement Med 1997;3: 241248.
  • 36
    Voll R. Twenty years of electroacupuncture diagnosis in Germany. A progress report. Am J Acupunct 1975;3: 717.
  • 37
    Bresser H. ‘Allergietestung’ mit der ‘Elektroakupunktur nach Dr. Voll’. Hautarzt 1993;44: 408409.
  • 38
    Katelaris CH, Weiner JM, Heddle RJ, Stuckey MS, Yan KW. Vega testing in the diagnosis of allergic conditions. Med J Aust 1991;155: 113114.
  • 39
    McEvoy RJ. Vega testing in the diagnosis of allergic conditions. Med J Aust 1991;155: 350.
  • 40
    Lewith GT, Kenyon JN, Broomfield J, Prescott P, Goddard J, Holgate ST. Is electrodermal testing as effective as skin prick tests for diagnosing allergies? A double blind, randomised block design study. BMJ 2001;322: 131134.
  • 41
    Semizzi M, Senna G, Crivellaro M, Rapacioli G, Passalaqua G, Canonica WG, Bellavite P. A double-blind, placebo-controlled study on the diagnostic accuracy of an electrodermal test in allergic subjects. Clin Exp Allergy 2002;32: 928932.
  • 42
    Brenemann JC, Hurst A, Heiner D, Leney FL, Moris D, Josephson BM. Final report of the food allergy committee of the American College of Allergists on the clinical evaluation of sublingual provocative testing method for diagnosis of food allergy. Ann Allergy 1974;33: 164166.
  • 43
    Grieco MH. Controversial practices in allergy. JAMA 1982;247: 31063111.
  • 44
    Lehman CW. A double-blind study of sublingual provocative food testing: a study of its efficacy. Ann Allergy 1980;45: 144149.
  • 45
    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: 6265.