4.5 Article

Patch Testing Results From the Massachusetts General Hospital Occupational and Contact Dermatitis Clinic, 2017-2022

期刊

DERMATITIS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/derm.2023.0085

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study retrospectively analyzed the patch testing results from the Massachusetts General Hospital Occupational and Contact Dermatitis Clinic from 2017 to 2022. A total of 1438 patients were included, with 81.2% of patients having at least one positive patch test reaction and 75.6% of patients having at least one relevant positive patch test reaction. Nickel was the most common allergen (21.5%), followed by hydroperoxides of linalool (20.4%) and balsam of Peru (11.5%). Sensitization rates increased over time for propylene glycol and decreased for 12 other allergens (all P values <0.0004).
Background: Patch testing is gold standard for identifying the source of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). Objective: To report patch testing results from the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Occupational and Contact Dermatitis Clinic from 2017 to 2022. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients referred to MGH for patch testing, 2017-2022. Results: In total, 1438 patients were included. At least 1 positive patch test (PPT) reaction was observed in 1168 (81.2%) patients and at least 1 relevant PPT reaction was observed in 1087 (75.6%) patients. The most common allergen with a PPT was nickel (21.5%), followed by hydroperoxides of linalool (20.4%) and balsam of Peru (11.5%). Sensitization rates statistically increased over time for propylene glycol and decreased for 12 other allergens (all P values <0.0004). Limitations: Retrospective design, single institution tertiary referral population, and variations in allergens and suppliers across the study period. Conclusion: The field of ACD is constantly evolving. Regular analysis of patch test data is crucial to identify emerging and diminishing contact allergen trends.

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

4.5
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