Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36461774›Full record

ArticleContact dermatitis2023

The prevalence and relevance of patch testing with textile dyes.

Lars Nijman, Thomas Rustemeyer, Sylvie M Franken, Norbertus A Ipenburg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contact dermatitis, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Lars NijmanDepartment of Dermatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2245-0809
Thomas RustemeyerDepartment of Dermatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7580-0684
Sylvie M FrankenDepartment of Dermatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6491-9495
Norbertus A IpenburgDepartment of Dermatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0679-4131

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTextile dye mix (TDM) is included in the European baseline series (EBS), but it is unknown if TDM identifies all patients with a textile dye allergy.

objectivesTo assess the added value of performing patch testing with individual textile dyes in addition to TDM.

methodsTwo hundred and nine patients suspected to have a contact allergy to textile dyes were patch tested between January 2015 and December 2021 with the EBS, as well as an individual textile dye test series containing textile dyes part of TDM (TDM-dyes) and outside the scope of TDM (non-TDM dyes).

resultsFifty-four patients (25.8%) tested positive for TDM or an individual textile dye. Disperse Orange 3 (9.6%) followed by Disperse Blue 106 (4.8%) were the most common individual textile dyes causing a positive patch test reaction. Of the 54 dye positive patients, 28 (51.9%) had a clinically relevant reaction. No clinically relevant reactions were seen in patients that solely tested positive for non-TDM dyes.

conclusionsIt is beneficial to test individual textile dyes in addition to TDM in patients suspected of having a textile dye allergy. Otherwise, 46.3% of the dye positive patients and 35.7% of the patients with a clinically relevant reaction would have been missed.

Indexed as

Dermatitis, Allergic ContactAllergensColoring AgentsHumansPatch TestsPrevalenceTextilesAllergensColoring Agentscontact allergypatch testingPPDPPDallergic contact dermatitistextile dye mixtextile dyes

Identifiers

PMID36461774
PMCPMC10108160

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.