ReviewContact dermatitis2025
Benzoyl Peroxide's Sensitisation Potential and Potency in Experimental Methods and Review of Contact Allergy and Allergic Contact Dermatitis.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Adapalene: A Rare Adverse Effect.Contact dermatitis · 2026Article
- Epidemiological Comparative Study on Contact Sensitisations in Woodworkers With Occupational Dermatitis: Patch Test Data of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology, 1999 to 2023.Contact dermatitis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
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
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.