Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2004
An 8-year experience in airborne contact dermatitis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Komericki Peter, Aberer Werner, Kränke Birger
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: A large number of case reports concerning occupational airborne contact dermatitis have been published in the last few years. Our purpose was to establish the prevalence of airborne contact dermatitis in a routinely patch-tested population and to obtain further epidemiologic data.
METHODS: In a single-center study, the data of 5,092 routinely patch-tested patients were collected using a standardized questionnaire and a documentation form. The study period extended from October 1994 to March 2002.
RESULTS: The clinical diagnosis was airborne contact dermatitis in 15 cases (0.29%). Patch testing revealed positive and relevant results in nine patients (0.18%). Plant or wood extracts were the sensitizers in all cases but two, and perfume and epoxy resin were the sensitizers in one case each. The diagnosis of an irritant airborne contact dermatitis was established in six patients. A relationship with occupation was found in seven cases (0.14%) when 'housewife' was included as an occupational category and in five cases (0.1%) when this was excluded.
CONCLUSION: Airborne contact dermatitis is a rare diagnosis in an unselected patch-test population. An occupational relationship was less common than has been implied in case reports in recent years.
METHODS: In a single-center study, the data of 5,092 routinely patch-tested patients were collected using a standardized questionnaire and a documentation form. The study period extended from October 1994 to March 2002.
RESULTS: The clinical diagnosis was airborne contact dermatitis in 15 cases (0.29%). Patch testing revealed positive and relevant results in nine patients (0.18%). Plant or wood extracts were the sensitizers in all cases but two, and perfume and epoxy resin were the sensitizers in one case each. The diagnosis of an irritant airborne contact dermatitis was established in six patients. A relationship with occupation was found in seven cases (0.14%) when 'housewife' was included as an occupational category and in five cases (0.1%) when this was excluded.
CONCLUSION: Airborne contact dermatitis is a rare diagnosis in an unselected patch-test population. An occupational relationship was less common than has been implied in case reports in recent years.