ArticleContact dermatitis2022
Simultaneous patch testing with fragrance markers in the baseline series and the ingredients of fragrance mixes: An update from southern Sweden.
Article in Contact dermatitis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- European Society of Contact Dermatitis Guideline for Diagnostic Patch Testing-Recommendations on Best Practice (Update 2026).Contact dermatitis · 2026Guideline
- Extended fragrance ingredients surveillance study (EFISS)-protocol for a clinical surveillance study on contact allergy to 7 fragrance materials in widespread use but hitherto not systematically patch tested.Archives of dermatological research · 2025Article
- Fragrance Contact Allergy - A Review Focusing on Patch Testing.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2024Review
- Use of sorbitan sesquioleate in patch test preparations and patch testing with the substance-What do our results mean?Contact dermatitis · 2023Article
- Simultaneous patch testing with fragrance markers in the baseline series and the ingredients of fragrance mixes: An update from southern Sweden.Contact dermatitis · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRegularly updating the prevalence of fragrance contact allergy (CA) is important. Patch testing with fragrance markers in the baseline series and the ingredients of fragrance mixes (FMs) is still debated.
objectivesTo update the prevalence and clinical characteristics of patients with fragrance CA. To establish the results of patch testing with individual allergens of FMs.
methodsA retrospective analysis of 3539 patients with dermatitis who were patch tested with the baseline series and FMs ingredients during 2016 to 2020 was performed.
resultsThe prevalence of fragrance CA was 13%. About 10% of these patients with fragrance CA would be missed if the individual ingredients were not tested. Unlike hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde, there was no decreasing trend of CA to Evernia prunastri (oakmoss) extract after the EU regulation came into force. Patients with CA from only one ingredient of the mixes or having a weak positive reaction to the ingredients were significantly missed when tested with only the fragrance markers in the baseline series.
conclusionsPatch testing with individual fragrance allergens is crucial for experts to expand knowledge in the fragrance CA field. The concentrations of the allergens in FMs may need to be adjusted to detect patients with fragrance CA, since some were significantly overlooked.
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.