Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29754191›Full record

ReviewClinical reviews in allergy & immunology2019

The Unique Molecular Signatures of Contact Dermatitis and Implications for Treatment.

Alexandra Leonard, Emma Guttman-Yassky

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. T helper and IL-20 cytokine signatures distinguish atopic dermatitis from contact dermatitis subtypes.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. A Practical Approach to Chronic Hand Eczema.Dermatology and therapy · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Beyond Avoidance: Advanced Therapies for Contact Dermatitis.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Role of Innate Immunity in Allergic Contact Dermatitis: An Update.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Innate Immune Mechanisms in Contact Dermatitis.Handbook of experimental pharmacology · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alexandra LeonardDepartment of Dermatology and the Laboratory of Inflammatory Skin Diseases, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center, 5 E. 98th Street, New York, NY, 10029, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7680-0598
Emma Guttman-YasskyDepartment of Dermatology and the Laboratory of Inflammatory Skin Diseases, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center, 5 E. 98th Street, New York, NY, 10029, USA. Emma.Guttman@mountsinai.org.
Mount Sinai Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) are common skin disorders that are characterized by inflammation, oozing, crusting, and pruritus. Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin disease characterized by immune and barrier abnormalities and is additionally a risk factor for acquiring ICD and ACD. New work on allergic sensitization to common allergens (e.g., nickel and fragrance) in human skin has shown that different allergens have distinct molecular fingerprinting. For example, nickel promotes strong Th1/Th17 polarization, whereas fragrance allergy causes Th2/Th22 skewing, which is similar to the phenotype of AD. While ACD has previously been considered to be constant across all allergens, largely based on mouse models involving strong sensitizers, these new data suggest that ACD differs mechanistically according to allergen. Further, ACD in the setting of concurrent AD shows a different and attenuated phenotype as compared to healthy individuals with ACD, which influences the way AD patients respond to vaccination and other treatment modalities. As in contact sensitization, skin challenged by food patch testing shows that common food allergens (e.g., peanut and barley) also cause distinct immune polarizations in the skin. Additionally, house dust mite reactions in human skin have been profiled to show unique Th2, Th9, and Th17/22 activation as compared to controls, which are similar to the phenotype of psoriasis and contact responses to nickel. Given this information, ACD patients should be treated based on their unique allergen polarity. Refined understanding of the molecular behavior of contact dermatitis and related diseases translates to improved methods of inducing tolerance in sensitized allergic patients, such as with targeted drug therapy and epicutaneous immunotherapy.

Indexed as

AllergensAnimalsBiomarkersDermatitis, Allergic ContactDermatitis, AtopicDermatitis, IrritantHumansLymphocyte ActivationSkin TestsT-Lymphocyte SubsetsAllergensBiomarkersAllergensAllergic contact dermatitisAtopic dermatitisContact hypersensitivityHuman skinImmune activationIrritant contact dermatitisPatch testingT cell polarization

Identifiers

PMID29754191
OpenAlexW2801660094

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.