ArticleCureus2024
Clinical Evaluation, Patch Testing, and Quality of Life Assessment in Patients With Cosmetic Dermatitis.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Cosmetics have become an integral part of the contemporary lifestyle. Contact dermatitis (CD) is an inflammatory skin disease resulting from exposure to an external chemical present in cosmetics. A patch test is considered the criterion standard method for detecting CD. CD has been demonstrated to be detrimental to the quality of life (QoL). Objective The present study aims to investigate the clinical-epidemiological profile of CD and identify the possible allergens involved in it through patch testing. We also aim to assess the impact of QoL on patients presenting with CD. Methodology A total of 65 patients with CD were enrolled in the study. A comprehensive history of cosmetic products was obtained, along with dermatological and systemic examination. Patch testing was done to identify possible allergens with the Indian Cosmetic and Fragrance series and allergens from the Indian Standard Battery as and when required. A quality-of-life assessment was done using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) questionnaire. Results The mean age of the patients was 43.2 ± 11.9 years, with a high preponderance of females (40; 61.5%). The most common cosmetic used was hair dye (45; 69.2%), followed by moisturizer/lotion/cream (23; 35.4%) and soap/shampoo/cleanser (16; 24.6%). The most prevalent site of allergy was the face (53; 81.5%), followed by the scalp (35; 53.8%), eyelids (33; 50.8%), and neck (22; 33.8%). The most common allergen was para-phenylenediamine (22; 33.8%), followed by fragrance mix (10; 15.4%) and Kathon CG (methylchloroisothiazolinone + methylisothiazolinone) (8; 12.3%). The mean DLQI score was 8.61 ± 5.36. Most patients had mild to moderate DLQI scores (45; 69.2%). Conclusion The present study was a prospective study that analyzed the clinical-epidemiological profile and impairment of QoL in CD. We identified the possible allergens involved in cosmetic CD by patch testing with the Indian cosmetic and fragrance series. We also assessed the impact on the quality of life in patients with cosmetic dermatitis. Further multicentric studies with ample sample sizes are required to validate the findings of this study.
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.