ReviewCurrent allergy and asthma reports2015
Recent Trends in Occupational Contact Dermatitis.
Review in Current allergy and asthma reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The OCCHLTH Mnemonic-Construction and Content of a Tool for Increasing Awareness of Occupational Illness and Injury.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2024Review
- Hand Eczema in Apprentice Nurses during the COVID-19 Pandemic after a Skin Prevention Program.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by colophonium, an unsuspected sensitizer in a petrochemical worker.Contact dermatitis · 2022Article
- Contact dermatitis.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2021Review
- Occupational Exposure to Metals and Solvents: Allergy and Airway Diseases.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2020Review
- Assessment of Occupational Safety and Hygiene Perception among Afro-Caribbean Hair Salon Operators in Manchester, United Kingdom.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Occupational contact dermatitis (OCD) remains prevalent among workers and impacts quality of life and workability. The purpose of this review is to summarize the recent advances in occupational contact dermatitis as well as potential hazardous agents in the workplaces causing OCD. The review covers new developments in the epidemiology, etiology, diagnosis, and management of occupational contact dermatitis. This article also provides updated information on the prevalence of work-related skin symptoms and on new contact allergens among working population. It is emphasized that in the context of prevention of OCD, special attention should be focused on the identified high-risk occupational groups, especially healthcare workers and hairdressers starting with the apprentices. Current approaches include working out the standards and guidelines to improve the education, knowledge, diagnosis, and management of OCD based on a multidisciplinary team of medical specialists and an employer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.