ArticleContact dermatitis2026
Epicutaneous and Drug Provocation Testing in Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions: A 20-Year Single-Centre Experience.
Article in Contact dermatitis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying and discontinuing the offending drug(s) in severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions (SCARs) can be particularly challenging, especially in polymedicated patients. For many years, patch tests (PTs) were considered the only safe and reliable method for investigating SCARs. However, intradermal tests (IDTs), once thought to be contraindicated, have recently garnered increasing interest. Similarly, oral provocation tests, previously avoided due to safety concerns, are now being more frequently employed in SCAR assessment.
methodsWe analysed SCARs reported at Monastir University Hospital. Allergy work-up included PTs, IDTs and oral provocation tests, with evaluation of cross-reactivity, co-sensitisation and neo-sensitization.
resultsWe identified 190 SCAR episodes in 188 patients. DRESS was most frequent (75%), followed by AGEP (19%) and SJS/TEN (6%). Causative drugs were identified in 97.9% of cases, mainly anti-infectives. Skin tests were conducted in 69.5% of patients, yielding positivity rates of 49% for PTs and 77% for IDTs in DRESS, and 52% and 66%, respectively, in AGEP. Cross-reactivity was noted in 7% of DRESS and 11.1% of AGEP, while neo-sensitization was documented in 32.5% of DRESS patients.
conclusionAllergological investigations are valuable tools in SCAR management, enabling identification of culprit drugs, assessment of cross-reactivity, detection of neo-sensitization and selecting safe alternatives.
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.