ArticleContact dermatitis2026
Contact Allergy to Ingredients of Hair Cosmetics Associated with Occupational and Non-Occupational Exposure-Trends from 1995 to 2020 in Central Europe, with or without Regulation.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHair cosmetic products contain various chemicals which are partly potent contact sensitizers. These may cause occupational hand eczema in hairdressers, but also scalp and face dermatitis in consumers.
objectiveTo (i) highlight differences between the spectrum of occupational and non-occupational exposure reflected in sensitization, and (ii) correlate trends in the last decades with regulatory interventions (or the lack thereof).
methodsPatch test and clinical data collected by the IVDK (https://www.ivdk.org) between 01/1995 and 12/2020 were subjected to a pooled re-analysis. Age-stratified sensitization prevalences in female hairdressers and consumers, respectively, were calculated for 2-yearly intervals spanning the study period. Log-binomial regression models were employed to estimate the association between contact allergy and (i) subgroup (hairdresser vs. consumer), (ii) a 3-level age category, and/or (iii) time period, respectively.
resultsHair dyes were the most frequent sensitizers in hairdressers and consumers; however, there was a marked increase in (particularly the young) consumers. Pyrogallol had been banned in 1992 but still elicited positive patch test reactions even in the young. Hydroquinone, banned in 2013 in dyes, showed no decline in sensitization prevalence. Glyceryl thioglycolate has been withdrawn and later banned in Germany since around 1995, which caused contact allergy prevalence to drop to almost zero in the youngest age group, largely until today.
conclusionAs a limitation, putatively differing selection for patch testing render prevalences difficult to compare between hairdressers and consumers. The importance of hair dye allergy is evident, needing continued efforts to increase product safety from the manufacturing and regulatory side. The potential of (self-)regulatory intervention is well illustrated by the decline of contact allergy to glyceryl thioglycolate.
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.