ArticleContact dermatitis2025
Imprecise Coding in Allergic Contact Dermatitis: A Register-Study From Northern Finland Between Years 1999 and 2022.
Article in Contact dermatitis, 2025. 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.
- Allergic Contact Dermatitis in a Paediatric Population: A 20-year Nationwide Registry-based Study.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRegistry-based data are increasingly used in dermatological research. A recent epidemiological study has shown that the use of non-specific diagnostic codes is common among dermatologists.
objectivesTo study closely the use of the diagnostic codes L23.8 ('allergic contact dermatitis [ACD] for other agents') and L23.9 ('ACD with unspecified cause') by using single-centre data. PATIENTS/MATERIALS/
methodsThis retrospective study included all patients whose record contained at least one entry of either code, recorded at the Oulu University Hospital, Finland, between the Years 1999 and 2022.
resultsThe database search retrieved records of 472 patients with the L23.8 code, 264 patients with L23.9. Over the 20-year follow-up period, the use of L23.8 increased and that of L23.9 decreased. In most (85.1%) cases, the L23.8 code was used even though the more specified L23 code could have been chosen. In one-third of cases, L23.8 was used to cover ACD with multiple allergens that would otherwise be identified by their specific sub-codes. The L23.9 code was used most often prior to patch testing (69.1% cases).
conclusionsThis study revealed several imprecisions in the use of both codes. Our study highlights the importance of correct coding in clinical practice, as it emphasises the most common pitfalls.
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.