154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17441852)
21. Determination of formaldehyde in formaldehyde-releaser patch test preparations.
Emeis D; de Groot AC; Brinkmann J
Contact Dermatitis; 2010 Aug; 63(2):57-62. PubMed ID: 20629671
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Monitoring contact sensitization to p-phenylenediamine (PPD) by patch testing with PPD 0.3% in petrolatum.
Geier J; Ballmer-Weber BK; Dickel H; Frosch PJ; Bircher A; Weisshaar E; Hillen U
Contact Dermatitis; 2013 Jul; 69(1):26-31. PubMed ID: 23782355
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. Different concentrations and volumes of p-phenylenediamine in pet. (equivalent doses) are associated with similar patch test outcomes: a pilot study.
Andersen F; Hamann CR; Andersen KE; Hamann D; Sager E; Hamann C
Contact Dermatitis; 2018 May; 78(5):335-340. PubMed ID: 29392743
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Comparative study of TRUE Test and Finn Chamber patch test techniques in Singapore.
Goh CL
Contact Dermatitis; 1992 Aug; 27(2):84-9. PubMed ID: 1395634
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Comparative multi-center study with TRUE Test and Finn Chamber Patch Test methods in eight Swedish hospitals.
Ruhnek-Forsbeck M; Fischer T; Meding B; Pettersson L; Stenberg B; Strand A; Sundberg K; Svensson L; Wahlberg JE; Widström L
Acta Derm Venereol; 1988; 68(2):123-8. PubMed ID: 2453990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. 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]
28. Contact allergy in children referred for patch testing: North American Contact Dermatitis Group data, 2001-2004.
Zug KA; McGinley-Smith D; Warshaw EM; Taylor JS; Rietschel RL; Maibach HI; Belsito DV; Fowler JF; Storrs FJ; DeLeo VA; Marks JG; Mathias CG; Pratt MD; Sasseville D
Arch Dermatol; 2008 Oct; 144(10):1329-36. PubMed ID: 18936397
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Excipient and Dose per Unit Area Affect Sensitivity When Patch Testing With Gold Sodium Thiosulfate.
Hamann D; Bruze M; Fowler JF; Hamann CR; Andersen KE; Hamann CP
Dermatitis; 2018; 29(5):258-263. PubMed ID: 30179971
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Positive rates to propyl gallate on patch testing: a change in trend.
Perez A; Basketter DA; White IR; McFadden J
Contact Dermatitis; 2008 Jan; 58(1):47-8. PubMed ID: 18154559
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Patch testing with neomycin sulfate.
Bjarnason B; Flosadóttir E
Contact Dermatitis; 2000 Nov; 43(5):295-302. PubMed ID: 11016671
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Stability of selected volatile contact allergens in different patch test chambers under different storage conditions.
Mose KF; Andersen KE; Christensen LP
Contact Dermatitis; 2012 Apr; 66(4):172-9. PubMed ID: 22404192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Miconidin and miconidin methyl ether from Primula obconica Hance: new allergens in an old sensitizer.
Paulsen E; Christensen LP; Andersen KE
Contact Dermatitis; 2006 Oct; 55(4):203-9. PubMed ID: 16958917
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. p-Phenylenediamine sensitization is more prevalent in central and southern European patch test centres than in Scandinavian: results from a multicentre study.
Thyssen JP; Andersen KE; Bruze M; Diepgen T; Giménez-Arnau AM; Gonçalo M; Goossens A; Le Coz C; McFadden J; Rustemeyer T; White IR; White JM; Johansen JD
Contact Dermatitis; 2009 Jun; 60(6):314-9. PubMed ID: 19489965
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. 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]
36. Dose per unit area - a study of elicitation of nickel allergy.
Fischer LA; Menné T; Johansen JD
Contact Dermatitis; 2007 May; 56(5):255-61. PubMed ID: 17441846
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Changing trends and allergens in the patch test standard series: a mayo clinic 5-year retrospective review, january 1, 2001, through december 31, 2005.
Davis MD; Scalf LA; Yiannias JA; Cheng JF; El-Azhary RA; Rohlinger AL; Farmer SA; Fett DD; Johnson JS; Linehan DL; Richardson DM; Schroeter AL; Connolly SM
Arch Dermatol; 2008 Jan; 144(1):67-72. PubMed ID: 18209170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Contact sensitivity to aluminum.
Brodbaker E; Pratt M
J Cutan Med Surg; 2009; 13(4):226-9. PubMed ID: 19706232
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Allergic skin disease: investigation of both immediate- and delayed-type hypersensitivity is essential.
Usmani N; Wilkinson SM
Clin Exp Allergy; 2007 Oct; 37(10):1541-6. PubMed ID: 17883733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Patch test reaction on Ethiopian subjects with eczema.
Bilcha KD; Shibeshi D; Grangsjo A; Hiletework M
Int J Dermatol; 2009 Sep; 48(9):979-83. PubMed ID: 19702984
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
