Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32622869›Full record

GuidelineActas dermo-sifiliograficas2020

Patch Testing During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recommendations of the AEDV's Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC).

J M Carrascosa, M A Pastor-Nieto, I Ruiz-González, J F Silvestre, L Borrego, M E Gatica-Ortega, A M Giménez-Arnau, en representación del Grupo Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea (GEIDAC), Miembros del Grupo Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea (GEIDAC)

Open access · goldAbstract readPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in Actas dermo-sifiliograficas, 2020. 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
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  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 11 institutions in 1 country.

J M CarrascosaServicio de Dermatología, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Badalona, Barcelona, España. Electronic address: jmcarrascosac@hotmail.com.
M A Pastor-NietoServicio de Dermatología, Hospital Universitario de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, España.
I Ruiz-GonzálezServicio de Dermatología, Complejo Asistencial Universitario de León, León, España.
J F SilvestreServicio de Dermatología, Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, Alicante, España.
L BorregoServicio de Dermatología, Hospital Universitario Insular de Gran Canaria, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, España.
M E Gatica-OrtegaServicio de Dermatología. Complejo Hospitalario Universitario de Toledo, Toledo, España.
A M Giménez-ArnauServicio de Dermatología, Parc de Salut Mar, Barcelona, España.
en representación del Grupo Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea (GEIDAC)
Miembros del Grupo Español de Investigación en Dermatitis de Contacto y Alergia Cutánea (GEIDAC)
Complejo Asistencial Universitario de Palencia · ESComplejo Hospitalario de Pontevedra · ESComplejo Hospitalario Universitario de Toledo · ESHospital General Universitario de Alicante Doctor Balmis · ESHospital Universitario de Guadalajara · ESHospital Universitario Insular de Gran Canaria · ESParc de Salut · ESUniversidad de Cádiz · ESUniversidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria · ESUniversidade de Santiago de Compostela · ESUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the COVID-19 pandemic gradually comes under control, the members of the Spanish Contact Dermatitis and Skin Allergy Research Group (GEIDAC) have drawn up a proposed list of the requirements, limitations, and conditioning factors affecting the resumption of work in contact dermatitis units. The assumption is that the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus2 is still circulating and that occasional or seasonal outbreaks will occur. They recommend that the first step should be to assess how many patch tests each clinic can handle and review the waiting list to prioritize cases according to disease severity and urgency. Digital technologies can, where possible, be used to send and receive the documentation necessary for the patch test (information, instructions, informed consent, etc.). If the necessary infrastructure is available, patients can be offered the option of a remote initial consultation. Likewise, in selected cases, the patch test results can be read in a virtual visit using photographs taken by the patient or a video visit can be scheduled to allow the physician to evaluate the site of application remotely. These measures will reduce the number of face-to-face visits required, but will not affect the time spent on each case, which must be scheduled in the normal manner. All of these recommendations are suggestions and should be adapted to the needs and possibilities of each health centre.

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Dermatitis, Allergic ContactDermatologyHealth SurveysHumansHypersensitivityOffice VisitsPandemicsPatch TestsPatient Access to RecordsPneumonia, ViralRisk ManagementSARS-CoV-2SpainContactContactoCOVID-19DermatitisEpicutáneasPatch testingTelemedicinaTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID32622869
PMCPMC7331509
OpenAlexW3040625538

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.