4.6 Article

Hand and foot dermatitis in patients referred for patch testing: Analysis of North American Contact Dermatitis Group Data, 2001-2018

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 87, 期 5, 页码 1049-1059

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2022.07.035

关键词

allergic contact dermatitis; dermatitis; eczema; epidemiology; foot; hand; health; irritant; itch; patch test; pruritus; rash

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study retrospectively analyzed patch testing data and found differences in patient characteristics, etiologies, and allergens between hand dermatitis, foot dermatitis, and hand-foot dermatitis.
Background: Dermatitis localized to hands (HD), feet (FD), or both hands and feet (HFD) has multiple etiologies, including atopic dermatitis, irritant contact dermatitis, and allergic contact dermatitis. Unfortunately, little is known about clinical differences between patients with HD, FD, and HFD. Objective: To characterize differences in demographics, etiology, and patch testing results among patients presenting with HD, FD, or HFD referred for patch testing. Methods: A retrospective analysis of patients patch tested by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group between 2001 and 2018. Results: Of 43,677 patients who were patch tested, 22.8% had HD, 2.9% had FD, and 3.7% had HFD. Allergic and currently relevant patch test reactions to $1 North American Contact Dermatitis Group screening allergen occurred in similar proportions in all 3 study groups. However, HD (18.0%) had higher proportions of occupationally relevant reactions than HFD (8.9%) or FD (4.0%). Nickel and fragrance mix I were in the top 5 currently relevant allergens for HD, FD, and HFD. Other top allergens, as well as allergen sources, differed between HD, FD, and HFD. Limitations: No data on HD or FD morphology or distribution. Conclusion: HD, FD, and HFD have several differences with respect to patient characteristics, etiologies, and clinically relevant allergens.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据