Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39910957›Full record

ReviewContact dermatitis2025

Benzoyl Peroxide's Sensitisation Potential and Potency in Experimental Methods and Review of Contact Allergy and Allergic Contact Dermatitis.

Kerstin Egele, Hans Drexler, Manigé Fartasch, Vera van Kampen, Hans F Merk, Dennis Nowak, Axel Schnuch, Wolfgang Uter, Patricia Kreis, Brunhilde Blömeke

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

10 authors.

Kerstin EgeleDepartment of Environmental Toxicology, Trier University, Trier, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-2020-8706
Hans DrexlerInstitute and Outpatient Clinic of Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Manigé FartaschDermatological & Allergological Private Practice, Siegburg, Germany.
Vera van KampenInstitute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr University Bochum (IPA), Bochum, Germany.
Hans F MerkDepartment of Dermatology and Allergology, Medical Faculty, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany.
Dennis NowakInstitute and Outpatient Clinic for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Member of German Center for Lung Research (DZL), Comprehensive Pneumology Center (CPC München), Clinical Center of the Ludwig Maximilian University Munich (LMU), Munich, Germany.
Axel SchnuchUniversity Medical Center Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5725-7734
Wolfgang UterDepartment of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology (IMBE), Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Patricia KreisDepartment of Food Chemistry and Toxicology, Institute for Applied Biosciences, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany.
Brunhilde BlömekeDepartment of Environmental Toxicology, Trier University, Trier, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3625-0701

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 516142524
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Positive patch test responses to benzoyl peroxide (BPO) have been reported from patients without and with known exposure. Up to 6.5% were found in the United States and 7.8% in a study including patients from Germany, Austria and Switzerland. We provide an overview of the skin sensitisation potential and potency of BPO based on animal experiments and non-animal methods. BPO tested positive in Guinea Pig Tests and the Local Lymph Node Assay. Application of the current OECD guideline to identify a skin sensitizer by combining non-animal method results gave differing outcomes. Moreover, patch test responses of patients to BPO were considered to determine the importance of BPO as a relevant occupational contact allergen. Another well-known BPO exposure is the topical application to treat acne. Despite widespread use, extensive and long-term skin exposure, we found for this group only studies reporting few positive patch test reactions. Further, occupational handling of BPO and contact allergy is reported by dental technicians. In-depth evaluation of the prevalence of contact allergy in different professions with suspected BPO exposure did not reveal an association with occupational handling of BPO. Consequently, a generally increased risk for those professions is not supported.

Indexed as

AllergensBenzoyl PeroxideDermatitis, Allergic ContactDermatitis, OccupationalDermatologic AgentsAnimalsGuinea PigsHumansLocal Lymph Node AssayOccupational ExposurePatch TestsAllergensBenzoyl PeroxideDermatologic Agentsallergic contact dermatitisbenzoyl peroxide [CAS‐no. 94‐36‐0]non‐animal methodsoccupational allergen

Identifiers

PMID39910957
PMCPMC12055316

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.