ArticleContact dermatitis2026
Anogenital Contact Dermatitis in Spain: A REIDAC Study of Patients Undergoing Patch Testing in 2019-2024.
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 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.
- Anogenital Contact Dermatitis in Spain: A REIDAC Study of Patients Undergoing Patch Testing in 2019-2024.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
30 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe REIDAC (Spanish Registry for Research in Contact Dermatitis) conducts nationwide epidemiological surveillance of contact dermatitis in Spain. Anogenital involvement within REIDAC has not been previously studied.
objectivesTo describe the most common diagnoses and update relevant allergens in patients with anogenital lesions referred for patch testing.
methodsWe analysed patients who underwent patch testing within REIDAC from 2019 to 2024. Patients were classified into three groups: (G1) exclusively anogenital lesions, (G2) no anogenital involvement and (G3) both anogenital and non-anogenital lesions. Sensitisation and relevance were assessed.
resultsAmong 18 291 patients, 116 (0.6%) had exclusively anogenital lesions, 17 576 (96.1%) had no anogenital involvement and 599 (3.3%) had both. G1 patients were more likely to have at least one positive reaction (91.4%), a current relevant reaction (53.4%, diagnosed with allergic contact dermatitis, ACD) and to be polysensitised compared to other groups (p < 0.001). 14.5% of anogenital ACD identified cases were not identified by the Spanish baseline series. Fragrances, preservatives, topical anaesthetics and steroids were the leading relevant allergens. Benzisothiazolinone, sodium metabisulfite and propolis emerged as new sensitisers.
conclusionACD was highly prevalent among patients with anogenital lesions referred for patch testing. The threshold for patch testing in these patients may need reconsideration.
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.