ArticleDermatology practical & conceptual2023
Prevalence of Type I Allergy to Latex and Type IV Allergy to Rubber Additives in Turkish Healthcare Workers.
Article in Dermatology practical & conceptual, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Occupational Contact Urticaria, Protein Contact Dermatitis and Concomitant Airway Diseases in the Finnish Register of Occupational Diseases in 2005-2020: Main Causes and Occupations at Risk.Contact dermatitis · 2026Article
- Article
- Latex Allergy in Children.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGlove-induced dermatoses are frequently seen among healthcare workers (HCWs) and are often mistakenly defined as latex allergy.
objectivesTo determine the prevalences of (i) the symptoms of immediate type hypersensitivity reactions, (ii) the symptoms of hand eczema, (iii) latex sensitization detected using skin prick test (SPT), and (iv) contact hypersensitivity to rubber additives or glove pieces detected using patch test, in Turkish HCWs.
methodsNinety-eight HCWs were included in the study. All subjects completed a questionnaire. All participants were skin prick tested for latex, and foods previously identified as concomitant allergens in latex-sensitive individuals; patch tested for 7 rubber additives, 3 additional haptens, and glove pieces.
resultsThe mean age was 32.1 (± 9.4) years, and 71 (72.4%) participants were nurses. Eighty-four (85.7%) subjects had a history of mucocutaneous symptoms of immediate-type hypersensitivity occurring within the first 24 hours after latex glove contact, while 9 (9.2%) subjects demonstrated SPT positivity for latex. Eighty (81.6%) subjects had a history of glove-induced hand eczema symptoms, while patch test positivity for the rubber additives or glove pieces was in 17.3%.
conclusionsAbout one-tenth of those with a history of glove-induced type I hypersensitivity symptoms had true latex allergy, and one-quarter of those with a history of glove-related hand eczema symptoms had contact hypersensitivity to glove products. Therefore, rote avoidance of latex use is generally ineffective in the management of glove-related skin complaints. Individual measures should focus on reducing the use of soaps and disinfectants, and promoting the use of moisturizers, rather than glove choice.
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.