ArticleDermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug
Allergic Sensitization to Nickel and Implanted Metal Devices: A Perspective.
Article in Dermatitis : contact, atopic, occupational, drug. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Selection of Breast Biopsy Markers: Effect on Breast Imaging Procedures, Follow-up, and Costs.Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc · 2026Review
- Systemic Inflammatory Symptoms Following Mastectomy With Nickel-Containing Surgical Clips: A Case Report.Cureus · 2026Article
- Metal Sensitization in Patients That Underwent Patch Test Pre and Post-Implant Exposure.Contact dermatitis · 2026Article
- Nickel allergy complicating iliac vein stent requiring explantation.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2026Article
- Extravascular implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation in a patient with nickel and cobalt allergies.HeartRhythm case reports · 2025Article
- Investigation of the Neurotoxicity Mechanisms of NiInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Resolution of Severe Ulcerative Colitis Secondary to Nickel Allergy Following Explantation of Amplatzer Septal Occluder Device: A Delayed Presentation.World journal for pediatric & congenital heart surgery · 2025Article
- Surgical Explantation of an Amplatzer Device for Patent Foramen Ovale Closure in a Patient With Nickel Allergy: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2024Article
- Tips and Tricks for Image-Guided Breast Biopsies: Technical Factors for Success.Journal of breast imaging · 2024Review
- Unveiling the Role of Metal Ion Concentration versus Immune Sensitization in Orthodontic Patients-A Long-Term Prospective Evaluation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
abstractThere is continuing interest in the interrelationships between allergic sensitization to metal allergens, metal implants, and the development of adverse reactions to implanted devices. Here, we focus on sensitization to nickel (although, in practice, it is commonly not possible to distinguish between events associated with nickel and other potentially allergenic metals used in devices). The purpose of this article was to review whether exposure to nickel resulting from implanted devices is associated with the development of de novo sensitization to nickel and also whether nickel sensitization, either newly acquired or pre-existing, has a causal relationship with adverse health effects. In addressing these issues, a variety of devices, including metal-on-metal hip implants, cardiac and endovascular stents and filters, and the gynecologic implant Essure, are considered. Also addressed is the question of whether pre-operative assessment of nickel allergy (and allergy to other implant metals) is required. The conclusions reached are that (a) sensitization can potentially be acquired as the result of exposure to implants containing nickel, but is not a common occurrence; (b) sensitization to nickel and/or other metal allergens is very rarely a cause of adverse reactions to implants; and (c) routine preoperative patch testing for sensitization to nickel is unnecessary, unless there is a significant clinical history of nickel allergy.
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.