4.6 Article

Allergic contact dermatitis in children: should pattern of dermatitis determine referral? A retrospective study of 500 children tested between 1995 and 2004 in one UK centre

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 154, 期 1, 页码 114-117

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2005.06845.x

关键词

allergic contact dermatitis; children; site of presenting dermatitis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) increases with age, and a prevalence of between 13.3% and 24.5% has been reported. Patch testing infants may be particularly difficult, and false-positive reactions may occur. Objectives The purpose of this retrospective study was to determine whether the site of primary dermatitis in children could predict a diagnosis of ACD. The current frequency of sensitization in children was also evaluated and the main sensitizing substances among children were verified. Methods Between 1995 and 2004, 500 children were patch tested and entered on to the patch test database at Leeds General Infirmary. Analysis of the database included identifying the presenting patterns of eczema and reviewing the patch test results for each child. Results Of the children, 133 (27%) had one or more positive patch test result. The effect of age on the likelihood of a positive patch test was highly significant (P < 0.001). Girls were significantly more likely to have a positive patch test compared with boys: odds ratio for a positive test 0.62 (95% confidence interval 0.41-0.95; P = 0.029). Type IV allergy to nickel (33%) was the most frequent finding. Reactions to fragrance mix (18%), cobalt (11%), mercapto chemicals, Myroxylon pereirae and p-phenylenediamine (each 8%) were the next most common. No statistical significance was found in the relationship between the site of primary dermatosis and a positive patch test result. Conclusions The pattern of presenting dermatitis in children should not determine referral for patch testing. Any child with persistent eczema should be referred for patch testing.

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