Patch testing reactions to a standard series in 608 patients tested from 1990 to 1997 at Massachusetts general hospital

American Journal of Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 207-211

  Albert, Michael R ^a   Gonzalez, Salvador ^b   Gonzalez, Ernesto ^a  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTACT DERMATITIS; CONTACT SENSITIZATION; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PATCH TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0031704378     PISSN: 1046199X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01634989-199812000-00003     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Marks JG, DeLeo VA: Contact and Occupational Dermatology, ed 2. St. Louis, MO, Mosby-Yearbook, 1997
2. Podmore 1', Burn D, Bingliam EA: Prediction of patch test results. Contact Dermatitis 11: 283-284, 1984
3. Lewis FM, Cork MJ, McDonagh AJG, et al: An audit of the value of patch testing: The patient's perspective. Contact Dermatitis 30: 214-216, 1991
4. James WD, -Rosenthal LE, Brancaccio RR, et al: American Academy of Dermatology Patch Testing Survey: Use and effectiveness of this procedure. J Am Acad Dermatol 26: 991-991, 1992
5. Drake LA, Dorner W, Goltz RW, et al: Guidelines of care for contact dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol 32: 109-113, 1995
6. Rudner EJ, Clendenning WE, Epstein E, et al: Epidemiology of contact dermatitis in North America: 1972. Arch Dermatol 108: 537-510, 1973
7. Storrs FJ, Rosenthal LE, Adams RM, et al: Prevalence and relevance of allergic reactions in patients patch tested in North America-1984 to 1985. J Am Acad Dermatol 20: 10381045, 1989
8. Nethercott JR, Holness DL, Adams RM, et al: Patch testing with a routine screening tray in North America, 1985 through 1989.1. Frequency of response. AmJ Contact Dermatitis 2: 122-129, 1991
9. Nethercott JR, Holness DL, Adams RM, et al: Patch testing with a routine screening tray in North America, 1985 through 1989. II. Gender and response. AmJ Contact Dermatitis 2: 130-134, 1991
10. Nethercott JR, Holness DL, Adams RM, et al: Patch testing uith a routine screening tray in North America, 1985 through 1989. III. Age and response. AmJ Contact Dermatitis 2: 198-201, 1991
11. Nethercott JR, Holness DL, Adams RM, et al: Patch testing uith a routine screening tray in North America, 1987 through 1989. IV. Occupation and response. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2: 247-251, 1991
12. Nethercott JR, Holness DL, Adams RM, et al: Results of first and second readings uith standard screening tray in North America: 1985 to 1989. Am J Contact Dermatitis 2: 255-259, 1991
13. Marks JG, Belsito DV, Deleo VA, et al: North American Contact Dermatitis Group standard tray patch test results (1992 to 1994).AmJ Contact Dermatitis 6: 160-165, 1995
14. Burrows D: Chromium and the skin. Br J Dermatol 99: 587-595, 1978
15. Burrows D: The dichromate problem. IntJ Dermatol 23: 215-220, 1981
16. Marks JG, DeLeo VA: Contact and Occupational Dermatology, ed 2. St. Louis, MO, Mosby-Yearbook, 1997
17. Haibert AR, Gebauer KA, Wall LM: Prognosis of occupational chromate dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 27: 214219, 1992
18. Rosen RH, Freeman S: Prognosis of occupational contact dermatitis in New South Wales, Australia. Contact Dermatitis 29: 88-93, 1993
19. Freeman S: Shoe dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 36: 247-251, 1997
20. Geier J, Sclmuch A: A comparison of contact allergies among construction and nonconstruction workers attending contact dermatitis clinics in German)-: Results of the Informa-tion Network of Departments of Dermatology from November 1989 tojuly 1993. AmJ Contact Dermatitis 6: 86-94, 1995
21. Nethercott J, Paustenbach D, Adams R, et al: A study of chromium induced allergic contact dermatitis ith 54 volunteers: Implications for environmental risk assessment. Occup Environ.Med51: 371-380, 1994
22. Fischer T, Rystedt I: False-positive, follicular and irritant patch test reactions to metal salts. Contact Dermatitis 12: 93-98, 1985
23. Bumvs D, Andersen KE, CamarasaJG, et al: Trial of 0.5% versus 0.375% potassium dichromate. Contact Dermatitis 21: 351, 1989
24. Andersen KE, Burrow's D, Cronin E, et al: Recommended changes to standard series. Contact Dermatitis 19: 389390, 1988
25. ChristophersenJ, Menné T, Tanghoj P, et al: Clinical patch test data evaluated by multivariate analysis. Contact Dermatitis 21: 2911-299, 1989
26. Kiec-Svierczynska M: Allergy to chromate, cobalt and nickel in Lodz 1977-1988. Contact Dermatitis 22: 229-231, 1990
27. Veien NK, Hattel T, Laurberg G: Patch test results from a private dermatologie practice for two periods of 5 years witha 10-year interval. AmJ Contact Dermatitis3: 189-192, 1992
28. Serra-Baldrich E, Lluch M, Valero A, et al: Contact dermatitis: Clinical review of 800 patients tested using the standard European series. Allergol Immunopathol 23: 67-72, 1995
29. Goh CL, Gan SL: Change in cement manufacturing process, a cause for decline in chromate alergy? Contact Dermatitis 31: 51-54, 1996
30. Zachariae COG, Agner T, Menné T: Chromium allergy in consecutive patients in a country where ferrous sulfate has been added to cement since 1981. Contact Dermatitis 35: 83-85, 1996
31. Wong SS, Chan MTS, Gan SL, et al: Occupational chromate allergy in Singapore: A study of 87 patients and a review from 1983 to 1995. AmJ Contact Dermatitis 9: 1-5, 1998
32. FowlerJF: Allergic contact dermatitis to metals. Am J Contact Dermatitis 1: 212-223, 1990
33. Möller H: All these positive tests to thimerosal. Contact Dermatitis31: 209-213, 1994
34. Smit HA, Coenraads PJ: Epidemiology of contact dermatitis, in Burr ML (ed): Epidemiology of Clinical Allergy. Monogr Allergy, vol 31. Basel, Switzerland, Karger, 1993, pp 2948
35. NakadaT, lijima M, N'akayama H, et al: Role of ear piercing in metal allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 36: 233-236, 1997
36. Veien NK, Hattel T, Laurberg G: Is patch testing a less accurate tool during the summer months? Am J Contact Dermatitis 3: 35-36, 1992