4.5 Article

Contact Dermatitis: A Practice Parameter-Update 2015

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2015.02.009

Keywords

Allergic contact dermatitis; patch testing; allergen; parameter; guideline; contact dermatitis; occupational; sensitizer

Funding

  1. Genentech
  2. Merck
  3. Baxter
  4. Amgen
  5. GlaxoSmithKline
  6. Greer
  7. Johnson Johnson
  8. Teva
  9. Pfizer
  10. Array
  11. Cephalon
  12. Novartis
  13. Boeringer Ingelheim
  14. Medimmune

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This parameter was developed by the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters, which represents the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI); the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI); and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. The AAAAI and the ACAAI have jointly accepted responsibility for establishing Contact Dermatitis: A Practice Parameter-Update 2015. This is a complete and comprehensive document at the current time. The medical environment is changing and not all recommendations will be appropriate or applicable to all patients. Because this document incorporated the efforts of many participants, no single individual, including members serving on the Joint Task Force, are authorized to provide an official AAAAI or ACAAI interpretation of these practice parameters. Any request for information or interpretation of this practice parameter by the AAAAI or ACAAI should be directed to the Executive Offices of the AAAAI, the ACAAI, and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. These parameters are not designed for use by the pharmaceutical industry in drug development or promotion. Previously published practice parameters of the Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters for Allergy & Immunology are available at http://www.JCAAI.org or http://www.allergyparameters.org. (c) 2015 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available