Electrical impedance as a potential tool to distinguish between allergic and irritant contact dermatitis

Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 394-400

  Nyrén, Miruna ^a   Kuzmina, Natalia ^a   Emtestam, Lennart ^a  

^a KAROLINSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DODECYL SULFATE SODIUM; IRRITANT AGENT; NICKEL;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTACT DERMATITIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMPEDANCE; IRRITANT DERMATITIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SKIN ALLERGY; SKIN WATER LOSS; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

EID: 0037343884     PISSN: 01909622     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1067/mjd.2003.96     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Wilkinson DS, Fregert S, Magnusson B, Bandmann HJ, Calnan CD,Cronin E, et al. Terminology of contact dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol 1970;50:287-92.
2. Wahlberg JE. Patch testing. In: Rycroft RJG, Menné T, Frosch PJ, editors. Textbook of contact dermatitis. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer; 1995. p. 241-85.
3. Serup J, Jemec G. Handbook of non-invasive methods and the skin. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 1995.
4. Berardesca E, Maibach HI. Bioengineering and the patch test. Contact Dermatitis 1988;18:3-9.
5. Serup J, Staberg B. Ultrasound for assessment of allergic and irritant patch test reactions. Contact Dermatitis 1987;17:80-4.
6. Serup J, Staberg B. Differentiation of allergic and irritant reactions by transepidermal water loss. Contact Dermatitis 1987;16: 129-32.
7. Staberg B, Serup J. Allergic and irritant skin reactions evaluated by laser Doppler flowmetry. Contact Dermatitis 1988;18:40-5.
8. Medenica M, Rostenberg A Jr. A comparative light and electron microscopic study of primary irritant contact dermatitis and allergic contact dermatitis. J Invest Dermatol 1971;56:259-71.
9. Lachapelle JM. Histopathological and immunohistopathological features of irritant and allergic contact dermatits. In: Rycroft RJG, Menné T, Frosch PJ, editors. Textbook of contact dermatitis. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer; 1995. p. 91-102.
10. Vestergaard L, Clemmensen OJ, Sorensen FB, Andersen KE. Histological distinction between early allergic and irritant patch test reactions: follicular spongiosis may be characteristic of early allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1999;41:207-10.
11. Morhenn VB, Chang EY, Rheins LA. A noninvasive method for quantifying and distinguishing inflammatory skin reactions. J Am Acad Dermatol 1999;41:687-92.
12. Hoefakker S, Caubo M, van't Erve EH, Roggeveen MJ, Boersma WJ, van Joost T, et al. In vivo cytokine profiles in allergic and irritant contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1995;33:258-66.
13. Grimnes S, Martinsen ØG. Bioimpedance and bioelectricity basics. San Diego (CA): Academic Press; 2000.
14. Longbottom C, Huysman M-CDNG, Pitts NB, Los P, Bruce PG. Detection of dental decay and its extent using a.c. impedance spectroscopy. Nat Med 1996;2:235-7.
15. Brown BH, Tidy JA, Boston K, Blackett AD, Smallwood RH, Sharp F. Relation between tissue structure and imposed electrical current flow in cervical neoplasia. Lancet 2000;355:892-5.
16. Nicander I, Ollmar S, Lundh Rozell B, Eek A, Emtestam L. Electrical impedance measured to five skin depths in mild irritant dermatitis induced by sodium lauryl sulphate. Br J Dermatol 1995; 132:718-24.
17. Nicander I, Ollmar S, Eek A, Lundh Rozell B, Emtestam L. Correlation of impedance response patterns to histological findings in irritant skin reactions induced by various surfactants. Br J Dermatol 1996;134:221-8.
18. Nicander I, Ollmar S, Lundh Rozell B, Emtestam L. Allergic contact reactions in the skin assessed by electrical impedance - a pilot study. Skin Res Technol 1997;3:121-5.
19. Mitchell JC. The angry back syndrome: eczema creates eczema. Contact Dermatitis 1975;1:193-4.
20. Pirilä V. Chamber test versus patch test for epicutaneous testing. Contact Dermatitis 1975;1:48-52.
21. Willis CM, Stephens JM, Wilkinson JD. Experimentally-induced irritant contact dermatitis: determination of optimum irritant concentrations. Contact Dermatitis 1988;18:20-4.
22. Blichmann CW, Serup J. The effects of skin moisturizers determined by the measurement of transepidermal water loss. Ugeskr Laeger 1987;149:1389-90.
23. Pinnagoda J, Tupker RA, Agner T, Serup J. Guidelines for transepidermal water loss (TEWL) measurement: a report from the standardization group of the European society of contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 1990;22:164-78.
24. Nyrén M. Skin sensitivity testing - a biophysical approach [thesis]. Stockholm: Karolinska Institutet; 2002.
25. Kirk RE. Experimental design: procedures for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove (CA): Brooks/Cole Publishing Co; 1995.
26. Bruze M, Isacsson M, Edman B, Björkner S, Möller H. A study on expert reading of patch test reactions: inter-individual accordance. Contact Dermatitis 1995;32:331-7.
27. Ollmar S, Nyrén M, Nicander I, Emtestam L. Electrical impedance compared with other non-invasive bioengineering techniques and visual scoring for detection of irritation in human skin. Br J Dermatol 1994;130:29-36.
28. Nicander I, Ollmar S. Mild and below threshold skin responses to sodium lauryl sulphate assessed by depth-controlled electrical impedance. Skin Res Technol 1997;3:259-63.
29. Emtestam L, Nyrén M. Electrical impedance for quantification and classification of experimental skin reactions. Am J Contact Dermat 1997;8:202-6.
30. Nyrén M, Hagströmer L, Emtestam L. Instrumental measurement of the mantoux test: differential effects of tuberculin and sodium lauryl sulphate on impedance response patterns in human skin. Dermatology 2000;201:212-7.
31. Ollmar S. Making electronic biopsies into a viable future for noninvasive diagnostics with electrical impedance. Med Biol Eng Comput 1999;37:116-7.