ReviewContact dermatitis2025
The 'MOAHLFA(P) Index': An Attempt to Standardise a Widely Used Array of Descriptors of Patch-Tested Patients.
Review in Contact dermatitis, 2025. 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.
- European Society of Contact Dermatitis Guideline for Diagnostic Patch Testing-Recommendations on Best Practice (Update 2026).Contact dermatitis · 2026Guideline
- Occupational Contact Allergy to Components of Epoxy Resin Systems: Descriptive and Comparative Epidemiological Analyses Based on IVDK Data 2008-2022.Contact dermatitis · 2026Article
- Patch Test Results With Additions to the European Baseline Series, 2021/22-Joint European Results of the ESSCAContact dermatitis · 2026Article
- Patch Test Results With the European Baseline Series, 2021/2022-Joint European Results of the ESSCAContact dermatitis · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Patients With Positive Patch Test Reactions to Rubber Additives: A Retrospective Study From Turkey Between 1996 and 2023.Contact dermatitis · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSince its inception in 1980, the MOHL index (% patients who are male, have occupational, hand, or leg dermatitis, respectively) and its later evolutions until the presently used MOAHLFA(P) index (adding % patients with atopic dermatitis, face dermatitis, age 40+ years and positive reaction(s) to ≥ 1 baseline series allergen) have been intended to convey important demographic and clinical information on the patients patch tested in a certain area and time, aiding the interpretation of the observed spectrum of sensitisation.
objectivesTo examine the current usage of the MOAHLFA(P) index and suggest consolidated definitions for its single items.
methodsA title/abstract search in Medline identified publications mentioning the evolving acronyms. A Delphi-like survey among contact dermatitis experts collected agreement with suggested definitions.
resultsThe search term 'MOAHLFA' was used in 35 publications from a broad geographical origin. More than 80% of the 24 participants of the survey (65% response) agreed on maintaining to use (i) sex for the 'M' criterion, (ii) occupation-related dermatitis irrespective of medicolegal definitions for the 'O', (iii) atopic dermatitis (but not rhinitis or asthma) for the 'A'. The possibility to use more than one site among 'H', 'L' and 'F' and a more detailed description of age distribution were favoured, and the difficult interpretability of the 'P' measure was highlighted.
conclusionsThe 'classical' MOAHLFA(P) index may be extended. Some aspects, notably atopic dermatitis, need further standardisation.
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.