Contact dermatitis · 2010
Fragrance mix II in the baseline series contributes significantly to detection of fragrance allergy.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Heisterberg Maria V, Andersen Klaus E, Avnstorp Christian, Kristensen Berit, Kristensen Ove, Kaaber Knud, Laurberg Grete, Menné Torkil, Nielsen Niels Henrik, Sommerlund Mette, Thormann Jens, Veien Niels K, Vissing Susanne, Johansen Jeanne D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Fragrance mix II (FM II) is a relatively new screening marker for fragrance contact allergy. It was introduced in the patch test baseline series in Denmark in 2005 and contains six different fragrance chemicals commonly present in cosmetic products and which are known allergens.
AIM: To investigate the diagnostic contribution of including FM II in the baseline series by comparing it with other screening markers of fragrance allergy: fragrance mix I (FM I), Myroxylon pereirae and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC).
METHOD: Retrospective study of 12 302 patients consecutively patch tested with FM II by members of the Danish Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2008.
RESULTS: FM II gave a positive patch test in 553 patients (4.5%), and in 72.2% of these patients the reaction was judged to be clinically relevant. FM II ranked second in detecting fragrance allergy, after FM I. If FM II had not been included as a screening marker in the baseline series, 15.6% (n = 202) of individuals with fragrance allergy would not have been identified by the other fragrance screening markers (FM I, M. pereirae or HICC).
CONCLUSION: FM II contributes substantially to detecting fragrance allergy. It ranked second among the fragrance screening markers tested in the baseline series and detects individuals with an allergy who otherwise would not have been identified.
AIM: To investigate the diagnostic contribution of including FM II in the baseline series by comparing it with other screening markers of fragrance allergy: fragrance mix I (FM I), Myroxylon pereirae and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC).
METHOD: Retrospective study of 12 302 patients consecutively patch tested with FM II by members of the Danish Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2008.
RESULTS: FM II gave a positive patch test in 553 patients (4.5%), and in 72.2% of these patients the reaction was judged to be clinically relevant. FM II ranked second in detecting fragrance allergy, after FM I. If FM II had not been included as a screening marker in the baseline series, 15.6% (n = 202) of individuals with fragrance allergy would not have been identified by the other fragrance screening markers (FM I, M. pereirae or HICC).
CONCLUSION: FM II contributes substantially to detecting fragrance allergy. It ranked second among the fragrance screening markers tested in the baseline series and detects individuals with an allergy who otherwise would not have been identified.