These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
131 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 12423405)
1. Dosage considerations in patch testing with liquid allergens. Shaw DW; Zhai H; Maibach HI; Niklasson B Contact Dermatitis; 2002 Aug; 47(2):86-90. PubMed ID: 12423405 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Which test chambers should be used for acetone, ethanol, and water solutions when patch testing? Isaksson M; Gruvberger B; Frick-Engfeldt M; Bruze M Contact Dermatitis; 2007 Aug; 57(2):134-6. PubMed ID: 17627666 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Patch testing with methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone 200 ppm aq. detects significantly more contact allergy than 100 ppm. A multicentre study within the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Bruze M; Isaksson M; Gruvberger B; Andersen KE; Gonçalo M; Goossens A; Johansen JD; Maibach HI; Rustemeyer T; Le Coz CJ; White IR Contact Dermatitis; 2014 Jul; 71(1):31-4. PubMed ID: 24712418 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparative study of IQ-ultra and Finn Chambers test methodologies in detecting 10 common standard allergens that cause allergic contact dermatitis. Doumit J; Pratt M J Cutan Med Surg; 2012; 16(1):18-22. PubMed ID: 22417991 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch test results for 2007-2008. Fransway AF; Zug KA; Belsito DV; Deleo VA; Fowler JF; Maibach HI; Marks JG; Mathias CG; Pratt MD; Rietschel RL; Sasseville D; Storrs FJ; Taylor JS; Warshaw EM; Dekoven J; Zirwas M Dermatitis; 2013; 24(1):10-21. PubMed ID: 23340394 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A comparative study between the two patch test systems Finn chambers and Finn chambers AQUA. Luu H; Mowitz M; Bruze M; Engfeldt M; Isaksson M; Svedman C Contact Dermatitis; 2021 May; 84(5):290-298. PubMed ID: 33368411 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparative study of Finn Chambers and T.R.U.E. test methodologies in detecting the relevant allergens inducing contact dermatitis. Suneja T; Belsito DV J Am Acad Dermatol; 2001 Dec; 45(6):836-9. PubMed ID: 11712026 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Quantification of aluminium release from Finn chambers under different in vitro test conditions of relevance for patch testing. Hedberg YS; Wei Z; Matura M Contact Dermatitis; 2020 Nov; 83(5):380-386. PubMed ID: 32484247 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A new occlusive patch test system comparable to IQ and Finn chambers. Sajun Merchant SZ; Vaidya AD; Salvi A; Joshi RS; Mohile RB Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol; 2014; 80(4):291-5. PubMed ID: 25035351 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Recommendation to increase the test concentration of methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone in the European baseline patch test series - on behalf of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis and the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group. Bruze M; Goossens A; Isaksson M Contact Dermatitis; 2014 Jul; 71(1):35-40. PubMed ID: 24712382 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparing patch test results of methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone tested with both TRUE Test® and 100 ppm using investigator-loaded chambers. Dittmar D; Schuttelaar ML Contact Dermatitis; 2018 Feb; 78(2):159-161. PubMed ID: 29341185 [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Reproducibility of patch tests: comparison of identical test allergens from different commercial sources. Schiessl C; Wolber C; Strohal R Contact Dermatitis; 2004 Jan; 50(1):27-30. PubMed ID: 15059100 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Audit of Finn Chamber patch test preparation. Moffitt DL; Sharp LA; Sansom JE Contact Dermatitis; 2002 Dec; 47(6):334-6. PubMed ID: 12581278 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Stability of fragrance patch test preparations applied in test chambers. Mowitz M; Zimerson E; Svedman C; Bruze M Br J Dermatol; 2012 Oct; 167(4):822-7. PubMed ID: 22803625 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. More positive patch test reactions with larger test chambers? Results from a study group of the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG). Brasch J; Szliska C; Grabbe J Contact Dermatitis; 1997 Sep; 37(3):118-20. PubMed ID: 9330817 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Path test reactions to the Chinese Standard Screening Allergens in 1,135 patients investigated for allergic contact dermatitis. Liu YQ; Zhao B; Zhuang LH; Fan WX Am J Contact Dermat; 1997 Sep; 8(3):141-3. PubMed ID: 9249281 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results 2013-2014. DeKoven JG; Warshaw EM; Belsito DV; Sasseville D; Maibach HI; Taylor JS; Marks JG; Fowler JF; Mathias CG; DeLeo VA; Pratt MD; Zirwas MJ; Zug KA Dermatitis; 2017; 28(1):33-46. PubMed ID: 27775967 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Recommendation to include formaldehyde 2.0% aqua in the European baseline patch test series. Pontén A; Goossens A; Bruze M Contact Dermatitis; 2013 Dec; 69(6):372-4. PubMed ID: 24117773 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Simultaneous sodium lauryl sulphate testing improves the diagnostic validity of allergic patch tests. Results from a prospective multicentre study of the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (Deutsche Kontaktallergie-Gruppe, DKG). Löffler H; Becker D; Brasch J; Geier J; Br J Dermatol; 2005 Apr; 152(4):709-19. PubMed ID: 15840103 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]