Contact dermatitis · 2022
Presentations to emergency departments in Melbourne, Australia diagnosed as allergic contact dermatitis.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Dear Kate E, Felmingham Claire, Ronaldson Claire, Nixon Rosemary L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study investigated cases diagnosed as allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) in emergency departments (EDs) and management.
METHODS: A multisite retrospective study of patients attending EDs in metropolitan Melbourne between July 2017 and June 2018 was performed. Using International Statistical Classification of Disease-10 (ICD-10) codes, the Victorian Agency for Health Information generated a list of cases of contact dermatitis (CD). Demographic and clinical data were analysed.
RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-eighty patients from 14 different sites were diagnosed with ACD. Hair dyes caused the most cases, and one such case was admitted to hospital. It was apparent from the specified causes that cases of irritant CD were misdiagnosed as ACD. There were significant differences in management with dermatology input, with dermatologists more often advising oral corticosteroids (33.3% vs. 14.5%, P = 0.004) topical corticosteroids (92.9% vs. 38.7%, P < 0.01), emollients (38.1% vs. 20.4%, P = 0.01) and less often advising antihistamines (16.7% vs. 44.6%, P < 0.001). With dermatology input, potent or very potent steroids were more likely to be prescribed (69.3% vs. 11.1%, P < 0.001); without, a mild potency steroid was more likely to be prescribed (63.9% vs. 4%, P = 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Improved understanding, diagnosis and management of CD are needed in EDs.
METHODS: A multisite retrospective study of patients attending EDs in metropolitan Melbourne between July 2017 and June 2018 was performed. Using International Statistical Classification of Disease-10 (ICD-10) codes, the Victorian Agency for Health Information generated a list of cases of contact dermatitis (CD). Demographic and clinical data were analysed.
RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-eighty patients from 14 different sites were diagnosed with ACD. Hair dyes caused the most cases, and one such case was admitted to hospital. It was apparent from the specified causes that cases of irritant CD were misdiagnosed as ACD. There were significant differences in management with dermatology input, with dermatologists more often advising oral corticosteroids (33.3% vs. 14.5%, P = 0.004) topical corticosteroids (92.9% vs. 38.7%, P < 0.01), emollients (38.1% vs. 20.4%, P = 0.01) and less often advising antihistamines (16.7% vs. 44.6%, P < 0.001). With dermatology input, potent or very potent steroids were more likely to be prescribed (69.3% vs. 11.1%, P < 0.001); without, a mild potency steroid was more likely to be prescribed (63.9% vs. 4%, P = 0.01).
CONCLUSION: Improved understanding, diagnosis and management of CD are needed in EDs.