Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26438196›Full record

ReviewDer Orthopade2015

[Should metal alloy discs be used for patch testing in suspected metal implant intolerance reaction?].

P Thomas, J Geier, H Dickel, T Diepgen, U Hillen, B Kreft, A Schnuch, C Szliska, V Mahler

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Orthopade, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [Diagnosis of contact allergy in practice using current guidelines].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2020
    Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

P ThomasKlinik und Poliklinik für Dermatologie und Allergologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Frauenlobstrasse 9-11, 80337, München, Deutschland. Peter.Thomas@med.uni-muenchen.de.
J GeierInformationsverbund Dermatologischer Kliniken (IVDK), Institut an der Universität Göttingen, Göttingen, Deutschland.
H DickelKlinik für Dermatologie, Venerologie und Allergologie, St. Josef-Hospital, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Deutschland.
T DiepgenKlinische Sozialmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
U HillenKlinik für Dermatologie, Universitätsklinikum Essen, Essen, Deutschland.
B KreftUniversitätsklinik und Poliklinik für Dermatologie und Venerologie, Universitätsklinikum Halle (Saale), Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Deutschland.
A SchnuchInformationsverbund Dermatologischer Kliniken (IVDK), Institut an der Universität Göttingen, Göttingen, Deutschland.
C SzliskaDermatologische Klinik, Krankenhaus Bethesda, Freudenberg, Deutschland.
V MahlerHautklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen, Erlangen, Deutschland.
Essen University Hospital · DEFreudenberg (Germany) · DEFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEMartin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg · DESt. Josef-Hospital · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intolerance reactions to metal implants may be caused by metal allergy. However, prior to implantation, patch testing should not be done in a prophylactic-prophetic approach. Pre-implant patch testing should only be performed to verify or exclude metal allergy in patients with a reported respective history. In the case of implant-in particular arthroplasty-related complications like, for example, pain, effusion, skin changes, reduced range of motion, or loosening, orthopedic-surgical differential diagnostics should be performed first. Allergological workup of suspected metal implant allergy should be done with the DKG baseline series which contains nickel-, cobalt- and chromium-preparations. Various studies assessing the usefulness of metal alloy discs for patch testing proved that this approach does not give reliable information about metal allergy. Positive patch test reactions to the discs cannot be assigned to a specific metal within the disc alloy components. Furthermore, availability of such metal discs might be an invitation to uncritical testing. Accordingly, due to lack of benefit in comparison to patch testing with standardized metal salt preparations, we do not recommend patch testing with metal alloy discs.

Indexed as

AlloysDermatitis, ContactEquipment DesignEquipment Failure AnalysisHumansMaterials TestingMetalsPatch TestsProstheses and ImplantsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityAlloysMetalsAllergyMetal alloy discMetal implantPatch test

Identifiers

PMID26438196
OpenAlexW1911604705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.