Hubbry Logo
Tine testTine testMain
Open search
Tine test
Community hub
Tine test
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Tine test
Tine test
Tine test
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Tine test
Tine test
Purposediagnosis for tuberculosis

The tine test is a multiple-puncture tuberculin skin test used to aid in the medical diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB). The tine test is similar to the Heaf test, although the Mantoux test is usually used instead. There are various forms of the tine tests which usually fall into two categories: the old tine test (OT) and the purified protein derivative (PPD) tine test. Common brand names of the test include Aplisol, Aplitest, Tuberculin PPD TINE TEST, and Tubersol.[1]

Procedure

[edit]

This test uses a small "button" that has four to six short needles coated with TB antigens (tuberculin), either an old tuberculin or a PPD-tuberculin. The needles are pressed into the skin (usually on the inner side of the forearm), forcing the antigens into the skin. The test is then read 48 to 72 hours later by measuring the size of the largest papule or induration. Indications are usually classified as positive, negative, or doubtful.[2]

Because it is not possible to control precisely the amount of tuberculin used in the tine test, a positive test should be verified using the Mantoux test.[3]

PPD

[edit]

Tuberculin is a glycerol extract of the tubercle bacillus. Purified protein derivative (PPD) tuberculin is a precipitate of non-species-specific molecules obtained from filtrates of sterilized, concentrated cultures. It was first described by Robert Koch in 1890 and then Giovanni Petragnani.[citation needed] A batch of PPD created in 1939 serves as the US and international standard, called PPD-S.[4] PPD-S concentration is not standardized for multiple-puncture techniques, and should be designed for the specific multiple-puncture system.[5]

Comparison to Mantoux test

[edit]

The American Thoracic Society or Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) do not recommend the tine test, since the amount of tuberculin that enters the skin cannot be measured.[6] For this reason, the tine test is often considered to be less reliable.[citation needed]

Contrary to this, however, studies have shown that the tine test can give results that correlate well to the Mantoux test.[7][8] If a minor reaction is considered doubtful, the OT test is less accurate and may fail to detect TB, producing a false negative.[2] If all doubtful indications are instead classified as positive, there is no significant difference between the OT test, the PPD tine test, or the Mantoux test.[3]

Furthermore, the tine test is faster and easier to administer than the Mantoux test and has been recommended for screening children.[9][10]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Tine test

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Tine test, also known as the tuberculin tine test, is a multiple-puncture test designed to detect (TB) infection by assessing an individual's to , a purified protein derivative (PPD) derived from . It involves applying a disposable disk equipped with four short tines coated in dried to the inner , then pressing the device firmly into the to create intradermal punctures that deliver a standardized dose of the , typically equivalent to 5 tuberculin units. The test is administered in a single step without the need for syringes or injections, making it simpler than the traditional , and results are evaluated 48 to 72 hours later based on the presence, size, and character of any induration, papules, or vesiculation at the puncture sites—a reaction of 2 mm or greater in diameter is generally considered positive, indicating prior exposure to TB bacteria. Developed in the late 1950s by physician Siegmund R. Rosenthal as an efficient screening tool for large populations, the Tine test aimed to streamline TB detection in settings like schools, workplaces, and military facilities by reducing administration time and eliminating the need for trained personnel to perform intradermal injections. Early studies, including comparisons with the Mantoux test, demonstrated that the Tine test offered comparable sensitivity for detecting TB exposure, with intertest agreement rates around 90% when read at 72 hours, though it showed slightly lower specificity due to occasional weak false positives. Advantages include its ease of use, portability, and minimal equipment requirements, which facilitated widespread adoption in the mid-20th century, particularly in resource-limited environments; however, disadvantages such as variability in puncture depth, challenges in precise dosing, and reduced reproducibility led to recommendations for confirmatory Mantoux testing on positive results unless vesiculation was evident. Although the Tine test played a significant role in TB screening programs during the 1960s and 1970s, it has largely been supplanted in modern practice by the more standardized Mantoux intradermal test and interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs), which offer greater accuracy and objectivity, especially in populations with prior BCG vaccination. Today, it is rarely used due to these limitations and the availability of advanced diagnostics, but it remains a notable example of innovative adaptations in tuberculin testing history.

Background

Definition and Purpose

The Tine test is a multiple-puncture tuberculin skin test employed as a diagnostic tool for detecting (TB) infection, utilizing a small disposable device featuring four short tines precoated with purified protein derivative (PPD) of to introduce the percutaneously into the skin and elicit an . This method aims to identify latent or active TB by provoking a delayed-type (DTH) reaction in individuals previously sensitized to TB antigens, manifesting as localized induration or vesiculation at the test site after 48 to 72 hours, thereby indicating prior exposure to the pathogen without distinguishing between latent infection and active disease. Tuberculin, the foundational antigen in the Tine test, originated as a glycerin extract of heat-killed tubercle bacilli, first described by Robert Koch in 1890 as a potential therapeutic agent before its repurposing for diagnostic purposes. The standardized form used today, PPD-S (purified protein derivative, standard), was developed in 1939 by Florence B. Seibert under the auspices of the US Public Health Service to ensure consistent potency and reproducibility across tests, with 1 tuberculin unit (TU) equivalent to 0.02 micrograms of PPD-S. Although the Tine test offers a simpler alternative to intradermal injection methods, the Mantoux test remains the preferred standard for TB screening due to its superior accuracy in dose control and result interpretation.

History

The discovery of tuberculin by in 1890 marked a foundational milestone in diagnostics, initially intended as a therapeutic agent but repurposed for detecting latent infection through skin reactions. This extract from cultures laid the groundwork for subsequent refinements, including the standardization of purified protein derivative (PPD) in 1939 by Florence B. Seibert, which established PPD-S as the international benchmark for potency and enabled more consistent testing protocols. The Tine test emerged in the mid-20th century as a multiple-puncture alternative to methods like the , aiming to simplify administration for large-scale screening. Developed in 1959 by S. R. Rosenthal in collaboration with Lederle Laboratories, it utilized a disposable applicator with four tines coated in standardized to deliver punctures. Early evaluations in 1964 demonstrated its comparability to the , though with noted inconsistencies in delivery and reaction measurement. By the , further studies, including a 1965 pediatric comparison, confirmed its efficacy in detecting sensitivity across varying units, paving the way for broader adoption. Widespread use of the Tine test proliferated in the and , particularly for mass screening in children and resource-limited settings, due to its ease, sterility, and cost-effectiveness compared to needle-based methods. During this period, it became a staple in and programs, with Lederle promoting it as a practical tool for control. However, research highlighted correlations with Mantoux results but significant variability in reproducibility and specificity, attributed to imprecise dosing and reader interpretation. Concerns over poor specificity, as seen in screening by , further eroded confidence. Usage declined sharply from the late onward due to persistent standardization issues, culminating in recommendations against it by the CDC and ATS in the 1990s. The 1999 ATS/CDC diagnostic standards explicitly deemed multiple-puncture tests like the Tine unreliable for diagnosing , advising confirmation with Mantoux if used, owing to uncontrollable quantities. The 2000 CDC guidelines reinforced this, stating that Tine and similar tests lack sufficient accuracy. Subsequent studies, such as a 2009 evaluation in BCG-vaccinated children, underscored its lower reliability by showing higher false-positive rates compared to Mantoux, further limiting its role in populations with vaccination history.

Procedure

Preparation and Administration

The inner aspect of the volar surface of the is selected as the test site, ensuring it is free from lesions, excessive hair, tattoos, or visible veins to minimize interference with application and reading. The skin is cleansed with a 70% alcohol swab and allowed to dry completely to reduce the risk of and ensure accurate penetration. Patients are informed prior to the procedure that they may experience mild stinging or discomfort from the punctures, similar to a pinprick, but no is required. The Tine test employs a disposable, single-use applicator device consisting of a small handle attached to a disk bearing four parallel tines, each approximately 2 mm long. Each tine is coated with dried purified protein derivative (PPD) , equivalent to about 5 units (TU) per application, serving as the to elicit a delayed-type response in individuals sensitized to antigens. The device is sterile and designed for ease of use without additional equipment like syringes. Administration is performed by a trained healthcare worker who holds the applicator perpendicular to the prepared skin surface and presses it firmly against the skin to ensure the tines penetrate the dermis to a shallow depth of approximately 0.6 mm without causing bleeding or excessive trauma. The punctures form a linear pattern, and the applicator is immediately discarded as biohazardous waste after use to prevent cross-contamination. The procedure takes less than a minute and requires no post-application dressing unless minor bleeding occurs, which is uncommon. The test should be scheduled such that reading occurs 48 to 72 hours post-administration for optimal assessment of the ; readings outside this window may yield inaccurate results. Concomitant acute febrile illness or recent administration of live-virus vaccines (within 4 to 6 weeks) should prompt deferral of the test, as these factors can suppress or alter reactivity.

Reading and Interpretation

The reading of the Tine test is performed 48 to 72 hours after administration to assess the at the injection site on the volar surface of the . The site is inspected under adequate lighting, with the induration—the palpable, raised, hardened area—measured transversely across the using a or caliper, recording the in millimeters while disregarding any surrounding (redness) or central . Oblique lighting or gentle fingertip may be used to delineate the borders of the induration for accurate . Results are classified based on the size of the induration and the presence of other reactions. A positive result is indicated by an induration of 2 mm or greater at any puncture site, or by the presence of vesicles or ulceration, which are considered unequivocally positive regardless of induration size. A negative result is defined as no reaction or an induration less than 2 mm, suggesting no prior exposure to . A doubtful result, typically an induration of 2-4 mm, warrants caution and follow-up testing. Some guidelines combine 2-4 mm as doubtful and reserve ≥5 mm as clearly positive, but the 2 mm threshold is widely referenced for initial positivity in Tine test protocols. Interpretation must account for several influencing factors to avoid misclassification. The boosting phenomenon can occur in individuals previously exposed to or related antigens, where a repeat test amplifies the reaction size due to recall of waning immunity, potentially mimicking new infection. False-positive results may arise from with nontuberculous mycobacteria (e.g., ) or prior BCG vaccination, leading to induration without active or latent TB infection. False negatives are common in anergic patients, such as those with , , or severe , where the is blunted despite TB exposure. For positive or doubtful results, further evaluation is essential. A positive Tine test necessitates a chest and clinical assessment to rule out active TB disease or confirm latent infection, potentially followed by treatment for latent TB if indicated. Doubtful results should prompt a repeat Tine test or, preferably, confirmation with the more standardized to resolve ambiguity.

Clinical Considerations

Indications and Contraindications

Due to its limitations in accuracy and standardization, the Tine test is not recommended by current guidelines from the CDC, ATS, and AAP for screening infection (LTBI) in any population, including high-risk groups. Historically, it was employed for initial screening in high-risk populations such as close contacts of active TB cases, healthcare workers, immigrants from high-prevalence countries, injection drug users, residents and employees of high-risk congregate settings such as prisons and nursing homes, and individuals with medical conditions that increase the risk of progression from LTBI to active disease, such as or chronic renal failure. These represent general indications for tuberculin skin testing, for which the standardized or interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs) are now recommended. Contraindications to the Tine test include a history of severe reaction to prior tuberculin skin testing, such as , blistering, ulcerations, or anaphylactic shock, as well as active skin infections or at the intended administration site. It should also be avoided in individuals with known to or its components. In cases of recent live-virus (e.g., , , ), testing should be delayed for 4-6 weeks to prevent transient suppression of the and potential false negatives. The test is not indicated for diagnosing active TB, where confirmatory methods like sputum microscopy, , or amplification tests are required instead. In severely immunosuppressed patients, such as those with advanced infection, the Tine test may produce false-negative results due to cutaneous anergy, necessitating cautious interpretation or preference for interferon-gamma release assays. Although safe for use in pregnant individuals without increased risk to the , results in this population should be evaluated alongside other clinical factors, and treatment decisions for positive tests deferred until after delivery if possible.

Advantages and Limitations

The Tine test offers several practical advantages in clinical settings, particularly for tuberculosis screening. Its administration is quick, typically taking only seconds compared to the minutes required for the of the , making it suitable for large-scale applications. The disposable, pre-loaded device requires minimal for healthcare workers and reduces the of needlestick injuries and cross-contamination, enhancing in resource-constrained environments. Additionally, it is cost-effective due to lower material costs and less tuberculin wastage, with studies indicating potential utility for initial screening in pediatric populations where simplicity improves feasibility. Patient acceptance is generally high, especially among children, owing to the less invasive multiple-puncture method that avoids syringe injection. Despite these benefits, the Tine test has notable limitations that affect its reliability. The amount of tuberculin delivered varies per tine due to inconsistent skin penetration, leading to potential false-negative or false-positive results and reduced reproducibility. Compared to the Mantoux test, it exhibits lower sensitivity and specificity, with concordance rates typically ranging from 70% to 90% in studies of BCG-vaccinated children, often requiring confirmatory Mantoux testing for positive results. It performs poorly on scarred, hairy, or thick skin, where adequate puncture depth cannot be achieved, further compromising accuracy. The test's semi-quantitative interpretation also introduces subjectivity in reading induration. As of 2025, the Tine test is rarely used in high-resource settings, where interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs) are preferred for their higher specificity and lack of with BCG vaccination. Although not standardized or recommended by the WHO or CDC since the 1990s due to these accuracy issues, it continues to be employed in some low-resource areas for initial screening despite guidelines against it, primarily for its simplicity and low cost.

Comparison to Other Tests

The serves as the gold standard for tuberculin skin testing in the diagnosis of infection. It involves the of 0.1 ml (5 tuberculin units, or TU) of purified protein derivative (PPD) into the volar surface of the using a 27-gauge, ½-inch needle and a 1-ml tuberculin , which should raise a pale, elevated wheal measuring 6-10 mm in diameter. The procedure requires the needle bevel to face upward and be inserted just under the skin at a 5- to 15-degree angle, ensuring the solution is deposited between the dermal layers without subcutaneous injection. The test site is read 48-72 hours after administration by a trained healthcare provider, who palpates the forearm to identify induration (the firm area of swelling) and measures its transverse diameter (perpendicular to the long axis of the forearm) in millimeters using a caliper; erythema (redness) is not measured. Interpretation of results uses risk-stratified induration thresholds to determine positivity: ≥5 mm for high-risk individuals, such as those with infection, recent close contacts of active cases, or organ transplant recipients; ≥10 mm for moderate-risk groups, including recent immigrants from high--prevalence countries, injection drug users, or children under 5 years without recent exposure; and ≥15 mm for low-risk persons with no known risk factors. These criteria, established by expert consensus, help minimize false positives while accounting for immune variability and population-specific TB , with more precise dosing contributing to reduced test-to-test variability compared to alternative methods. In contrast to the Tine test, which employs multiple punctures with variable antigen delivery, the provides a standardized amount of PPD, enhancing and diagnostic accuracy. It demonstrates approximately 95% sensitivity and 97% specificity in non-BCG-vaccinated populations, making it the preferred method endorsed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), American Thoracic Society (ATS), and (WHO).

Other Tuberculin Tests

The , developed in the mid-20th century and widely used in the until 2005, is a multiple-puncture tuberculin skin test employing a spring-loaded gun with six short needles to deliver purified protein derivative (PPD) into the . The device is pressed firmly against the skin to create uniform punctures, typically using 100 tuberculin units of PPD, and the site is read after 7 days. Reactions are graded from 0 to 4: grade 0 shows no induration, grade 1 features discrete papules, grade 2 displays induration over half the needles, grade 3 indicates induration over all needles with separate lesions, and grade 4 reveals confluent induration forming a ring. Grades 3 and 4 are considered strongly positive, indicating likely infection, while grade 2 may warrant further evaluation. The test was discontinued in 2005 primarily due to device-related issues, including the discovery of small metal fragments embedded in the skin from the Heaf gun heads, alongside challenges in sourcing replacement parts. Patch tests, such as the Vollmer tuberculin patch introduced in 1937, represent an earlier non-invasive approach where a gauze or fabric patch impregnated with dried tuberculin (typically 50 test doses) is applied to the skin, often over the sternum or interscapular area, and left in place for 48-72 hours. The reaction, assessed 48 hours after patch removal, manifests as vesiculation, necrosis, or erythema, with positive results indicating tuberculosis exposure; however, interpretation relies on subjective visual assessment. These tests were valued for their painlessness and simplicity, particularly in pediatric screening, but suffered from low sensitivity (around 70-80% compared to intradermal methods) and lack of standardization in tuberculin dosing and application, rendering them unreliable for widespread use. As a result, patch tests are now rarely employed in clinical practice for tuberculosis diagnosis. Jet injector methods for tuberculin testing, developed in the 1960s for mass screening, use high-pressure devices to propel a liquid PPD solution (standardized to 5 tuberculin units) through the skin without needles, creating an intradermal wheal similar to the . This approach allowed rapid administration in high-volume settings, such as campaigns, but often caused more pain and variable dosing due to inconsistencies in pressure and skin . Over time, concerns about potential from pathogens, incomplete sterilization between uses, and lower reproducibility led to their phase-out in favor of more precise intradermal techniques by the late . Like the Tine test, other multiple-puncture tuberculin skin tests such as the Heaf offer advantages in ease and speed over the intradermal Mantoux standard but generally exhibit reduced precision in antigen delivery and reaction measurement, contributing to higher rates of false negatives or indeterminate results. In contemporary practice, interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs), which detect via blood samples rather than skin reactions, have emerged as non-skin alternatives that circumvent limitations like subjective induration reading, booster effects, and interference from prior BCG vaccination.

References

  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK369/
  2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/tine%20test
  3. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/338039
  4. https://pathologytestsexplained.org.au/ptests.php?q=Tuberculosis%20screening%20tests
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2779491/
  6. https://academic.oup.com/femspd/article/66/3/273/576710
  7. https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/34/3/365/389398
  8. https://www.cdc.gov/world-tb-day/history/index.html
  9. https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object-groups/antibody-initiative/tuberculosis
  10. https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/AJA20785135_24301
  11. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14215916/
  12. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5318603/
  13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0007097182900110
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5308149/
  15. https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/10.1164/ajrccm.161.4.16141
  16. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4906a1.htm
  17. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/331552
  18. https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(16)30809-1/fulltext
  19. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7336475/
  20. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/114/Supplement_4/1175/28933/Targeted-Tuberculin-Skin-Testing-and-Treatment-of
  21. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7371350/
  22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140673682905992
  23. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/1178459/jama_180_13_012b.pdf?resultClick=1
  24. https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1164/arrd.1969.99.4P1.623a?download=true
  25. https://scispace.com/pdf/tuberculin-testing-in-hospital-personnel-3r7t8oa4jo.pdf
  26. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/020A322EA2D558C80A127A9246198F69/S0022172400025481a.pdf/comparison_of_the_tuberculin_tine_test_and_the_mantoux.pdf
  27. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1742-1241.1989.tb08729.x
  28. https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/10.1164/ajrccm.161.supplement_3.ats600
  29. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5412a1.htm
  30. https://www.cdc.gov/tb/hcp/testing-diagnosis/tuberculin-skin-test.html
  31. https://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/factsheets/testing/Tuberculin_Skin_Testing_Information_for_Health_Care_Providers.pdf
  32. https://www.drugs.com/cdi/tuberculin-tests.html
  33. https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/tuberculin-intradermal-route/description/drg-20066571
  34. https://www.cdc.gov/tb/about/pregnancy.html
  35. https://odh.ohio.gov/wps/wcm/connect/gov/303a7067-b972-43bf-823a-8aa5fe380839/chapter%2B7%2B-%2Bdiagnosisofltbi.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CONVERT_TO=url&CACHEID=ROOTWORKSPACE.Z18_M1HGGIK0N0JO00QO9DDDDM3000-303a7067-b972-43bf-823a-8aa5fe380839-mkl8.9I
  36. https://www.cdc.gov/tb/hcp/mantoux/wall-chart.html
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0378113594900507
  38. https://tbksp.who.int/en/node/2029
  39. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095926527
  40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2006.02.032
  41. https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1164/art.1943.48.5.324
  42. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/21/6/1047/40725/Tuberculin-Patch-Test
  43. https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1164/arrd.1966.93.4.635
  44. https://www.cdc.gov/tb/hcp/testing-diagnosis/interferon-gamma-release-assay.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.