Influence of patch-test application tape on reactions to sodium dodecyl sulfate

Contact Dermatitis

Volumn 40, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 32-37

  Fischer, Torkel ^a,b   Dahlén, Åsa ^a   Bjarnason, Bolli ^b  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR WORKING LIFE   (Sweden)

^b KAROLINSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Bioengineering methods; Effect of application tape; Laser Doppler perfusion imaging; Patch testing technique; Sodium dodecyl sulfate; Transepidermal water loss; Visual assessment

Indexed keywords

DODECYL SULFATE SODIUM;

ADHESION; ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ELASTICITY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LASER DOPPLER FLOWMETRY; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PATCH TEST; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; SKIN WATER LOSS; STANDARDIZATION; TECHNIQUE; WATER PERMEABILITY;

ADHESIVES; ADULT; BANDAGES; DERMATITIS, ALLERGIC CONTACT; ERYTHEMA; FEMALE; HUMANS; LASER-DOPPLER FLOWMETRY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATCH TESTS; REGIONAL BLOOD FLOW; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SKIN; SODIUM DODECYL SULFATE; SURFACE-ACTIVE AGENTS; WATER LOSS, INSENSIBLE;

EID: 0032908779     PISSN: 01051873     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1999.tb05973.x     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. 1. Fischer T, Maibach H I. Improved, but not Perfect, Patch Testing. Am J Cont Derm 1990: 1: 73-90.
2. 2. Tanglertsampan C, Maibach H I. The role of vehicles in diagnostic patch testing. A reappraisal. Contact Dermatitis 1993: 29: 169-174.
3. 3. Memon A A, Friedmann P S. Studies on the reproducibility of allergic contact dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 1996: 134: 208-214.
4. 4. Bjarnason B, Fischer T. Objective assessment of nickel sulfate patch test reactions with laser Doppler perfusion imaging. Comparison between clinical evaluation of nickel patch test reaction and perfusion profiles using laser Doppler perfusion imager (LDPI). Contact Dermatitis 1998: 39: 000-000.
5. 5. Brasch J, Henseler T, Aberer W, Bäuerle G, Frosch P, Fuchs T, Fünfstyck V, Kaiser G, Lischka G G, Pilz B, Sauer C, Schaller J, Scheuer B, Szliska C. Reproducibility of patch tests. A multicenter study of synchronous left-versus right-sided patch tests by the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group. J Am Acad Dermatol 1994: 31: 584-591.
6. 6. Gollhausen R B, Przybilla, Ring J. Reproducibility of patch tests. J Am Acad Dermatol 1989: 21: 1196-1202.
7. 7. Lachapelle J M, Antoine J L. Problems raised by the simultaneous reproducibility of positive allergic patch test reactions in man. J Am Acad Dermatol 1989: 21: 850-854.
8. 8. Peltonen L. Comparison of Al-test and Finn chamber test. Contact Dermatitis, 1981: 7: 192-196.
9. 9. Fischer T, Bjarnason B. Sensitizing and irritant properties of 3 environmental classes of diesel oil and their indicator dyes. Contact Dermatitis. 1996: 34: 309-315.
10. 10. Fischer T, Maibach H I. The thin layer rapid use epicutaneous test (TRUE-test), a new patch test method with high accuracy. Br J Dermatol 1985: 112: 163-168.
11. 11. Fischer T, Maibach H I. Easier patch testing with TRUE-test™. J Amer Acad Dermatol 1989: 20: 447-453.
12. 12. Methods of test for surgical dressings, H. Adhesiveness. Test 1 and 2. British Pharmacopoeia 1993. Appendix XX. Published under the direction of the General Medical Council pursuant to the Medical Act 1956.
13. 13. Tokumura F, Ohyama K, Fujisawa H, Matsuda T, Kitazaki Y. Conformability and irritancy of adhesive tapes on the skin. Contact Dermatitis 1997: 37: 173-178.
14. 14. Pirilä V. Chamber test versus patch test for epicutaneous testing. Contact Dermatitis 1975: 1: 48-52.
15. 15. Berggrund A, Bergh M, Nilsson J L G, Fischer T, Karlberg A-T. Influence of the formation of oxidation products on potential of ethoxylated surfactants. Evaluation by non-invasive bioengineering methods. 1998: in manuscript form.