ArticleContact dermatitis2026
2-Hydroxyethyl Methacrylate, Methyl Methacrylate and Ethyl Acrylate Sensitisation: A 7-Year Retrospective Study.
Article in Contact dermatitis, 2026. 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.
- Aspects of Adverse Effects of Cosmetic Products: An Invited Narrative Review.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2026Review
- 2-Hydroxyethyl Methacrylate, Methyl Methacrylate and Ethyl Acrylate Sensitisation: A 7-Year Retrospective Study.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcrylates are increasingly common contact allergens; sensitisation is frequently associated with nail products. No prior study has been found in the European literature in which both methyl methacrylate (MMA) and ethyl acrylate (EA), in addition to 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) were included in the standard baseline series.
objectivesTo investigate the prevalence and characteristics of 2-HEMA, MMA and EA sensitisation at a university centre in Hungary.
methodsThis retrospective study included 2005 consecutive patients who underwent patch testing between 2018 and 2024 with the European baseline series (EBS) extended with 2-HEMA (in 2018), MMA and EA.
resultsOut of the tested 2005 patients, 74 (3.7%) were positive for at least one of the three acrylates; among them 86.5% were women. Mostly the hands (70.3%) and the face (24.3%) were symptomatic. Nail product exposure was significantly more frequent among younger patients. 20.3% of the acrylate-positive patients had no hypersensitivity to 2-HEMA, only to MMA and/or EA. Reactions to 2-HEMA and EA mostly appeared on D2, whereas MMA first reactions were predominantly on D7.
conclusionOur findings suggest that testing MMA and EA in the EBS would be beneficial. Evaluating patch tests until the 7th day is essential.
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.