ReviewDer Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete2021
[The "dermatologist's procedure" after the abolition of the obligation to refrain from risky work activities in occupational disease law].
Review in Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Occupational disease (German: Berufskrankheit, BK) No. 5101 was previously defined as a "serious or recurrent skin disease that has forced a person to refrain from all activities that were or could be the cause of the development, aggravation or recurrence of the disease". In a far-reaching reform of the occupational disease law, which came into force on 01 January 2021, the German legislature decided to abolish the "obligation to refrain" as a prerequisite for the recognition of an occupational disease. To avoid this "obligation to refrain" was the motivation to introduce the "dermatologist's procedure" in 1972. The prevention instruments established in this procedure (dermatological treatment, workplace sanitation, skin protection measures, health education) were successful in the majority of cases. While the abolition of the "obligation to refrain" will, on the one hand, facilitate the recognition of serious or recurrent skin diseases as occupational diseases, the "dermatologist's procedure" will, however, continue to be important for occupational skin diseases, especially cases of hand eczema, which primarily do not meet the criteria of severity and/or recurrence and which can be controlled by appropriate treatment and prevention measures. In order to avoid delays in secondary prevention when notifying an occupational disease, a supplementary dermatological report to the disease notification should provide accident insurance carriers with the information necessary for timely prevention measures and dermatological treatment. An indication for the severity of the skin disease might be the success or failure of the "dermatologist's procedure".
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.