Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Contact Dermatitisarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Contact Dermatitis
Article . 2014 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Fragrance patch tests prepared in advance may give false‐negative reactions

Authors: Martin, Mowitz; Cecilia, Svedman; Erik, Zimerson; Magnus, Bruze;

Fragrance patch tests prepared in advance may give false‐negative reactions

Abstract

SummaryBackgroundSeveral of the ingredients in fragrance mix I (FM I) have been shown to evaporate from petrolatum preparations applied in test chambers to an extent that can be suspected to affect the patch test result.ObjectivesTo compare the reactivity towards FM I and fragrance mix II (FM II) when they are applied in test chambers in advance and immediately prior to the patch test occasion.MethodsSeven hundred and ninety‐five consecutive patients were simultaneously patch tested with duplicate samples of FM I and FM II. One sample was applied in the test chamber 6 days in advance (6D sample), and the other sample was applied immediately before the patients were patch tested (fresh sample).ResultsTwenty‐two (2.8%) patients reacted exclusively to the fresh sample of FM I, 6 (0.7%) reacted exclusively to the 6D sample, and 22 (2.8%) reacted to both samples. The corresponding numbers for FM II were 9 (1.1%) for the fresh sample, 6 (0.7%) for the 6D sample and 12 (1.5%) for both samples.ConclusionsThere was a statistically significant difference between the numbers of patients reacting to the fresh and 6D samples of FM I. No corresponding difference was observed for FM II. This can probably be explained by differences in volatilities between the ingredients of FM I and FM II.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Time Factors, Drug Stability, Dermatitis, Allergic Contact, Humans, Allergens, Patch Tests, Volatilization, Perfume

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    26
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
26
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!