175 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19037765)
1. Dermatological testing of an emollient-treated menstrual pad with a novel foam absorbent core.
Farage MA; Segarra VS; Bramante M; Elsner P; Maibach HI
Cutan Ocul Toxicol; 2008; 27(4):333-43. PubMed ID: 19037765
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Skin moisturization and frictional effects of an emollient-treated menstrual pad with a foam core.
Farage MA; Berardesca E; Maibach H
Cutan Ocul Toxicol; 2009; 28(1):25-31. PubMed ID: 19514922
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Evaluation of modifications of the traditional patch test in assessing the chemical irritation potential of feminine hygiene products.
Farage MA; Meyer S; Walter D
Skin Res Technol; 2004 May; 10(2):73-84. PubMed ID: 15059174
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. The Behind-the-Knee test: an efficient model for evaluating mechanical and chemical irritation.
Farage MA
Skin Res Technol; 2006 May; 12(2):73-82. PubMed ID: 16626379
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Dermatological testing of an improved apertured film surface for feminine hygiene pads.
Farage MA; Wang B; Tucker H; Ogle J; Rodenberg C; Azuka CE; Klebba C; Wilhelm KP
Cutan Ocul Toxicol; 2012 Sep; 31(3):198-203. PubMed ID: 22141375
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Development of a sensitive test method to evaluate mechanical irritation potential on mucosal skin.
Farage MA; Meyer S; Walter D
Skin Res Technol; 2004 May; 10(2):85-95. PubMed ID: 15059175
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Cutaneous and sensory effects of two types of sanitary pads with different surfaces in the Shanghai, Chinese population.
Xuemin W; Sato N; Chao Y; Na L; Fujimura T; Takagi Y; Nojiri H; Kitahara T; Takema Y
Cutan Ocul Toxicol; 2011 Sep; 30(3):212-6. PubMed ID: 21241167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Cumulative skin irritation test of sanitary pads in sensitive skin and normal skin population.
Farage MA; Maibach H
Cutan Ocul Toxicol; 2007; 26(1):37-43. PubMed ID: 17464747
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Influence of usage practices, ethnicity and climate on the skin compatibility of sanitary pads.
Farage M; Elsner P; Maibach H
Arch Gynecol Obstet; 2007 Jun; 275(6):415-27. PubMed ID: 17514373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Skin benefits with a novel emollient-treated menstrual pad.
Farage MA; Miller KW; Azuka CE; Wang B; Lankhof S; Henn D; Messerschmidt A; Goldhammer A; Wilhelm KP; Maibach HI
Rev Recent Clin Trials; 2013 Mar; 8(1):29-35. PubMed ID: 23259459
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Evaluating lotion transfer to skin from feminine protection products.
Farage M
Skin Res Technol; 2008 Feb; 14(1):35-44. PubMed ID: 18211600
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The vulvar epithelium differs from the skin: implications for cutaneous testing to address topical vulvar exposures.
Farage M; Maibach HI
Contact Dermatitis; 2004 Oct; 51(4):201-9. PubMed ID: 15500670
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Assessing the dermal compatibility of a new female incontinence product line.
Gutshall D; Zhou S; Wang B; Farage MA; Hochwalt AE
Cutan Ocul Toxicol; 2016 Dec; 35(4):287-95. PubMed ID: 26621074
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluating lotion transfer from products to skin using the behind-the-knee test.
Farage MA
Skin Res Technol; 2010 May; 16(2):243-52. PubMed ID: 20456105
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. An investigator blinded cross-over study to characterize the cutaneous effects and suitability of modern sanitary pads for menstrual protection for women residing in the USA.
Fujimura T; Sato N; Takagi Y; Ohuchi A; Kawasaki H; Kitahara T; Takema Y; Rizer RL
Cutan Ocul Toxicol; 2011 Sep; 30(3):205-11. PubMed ID: 21425952
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Effect of patch type on the cumulative irritation potential of 4 test materials.
Bagley DM; Boisits EK; Spriggs TL; Schwartz S
Am J Contact Dermat; 2001 Mar; 12(1):25-7. PubMed ID: 11244136
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Sanitary napkin contact dermatitis of the vulva: location-dependent differences in skin surface conditions may play a role in negative patch test results.
Wakashin K
J Dermatol; 2007 Dec; 34(12):834-7. PubMed ID: 18078410
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Skin interaction with absorbent hygiene products.
Runeman B
Clin Dermatol; 2008; 26(1):45-51. PubMed ID: 18280904
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. A review of critical factors in the conduct and interpretation of the human repeat insult patch test.
McNamee PM; Api AM; Basketter DA; Frank Gerberick G; Gilpin DA; Hall BM; Jowsey I; Robinson MK
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol; 2008 Oct; 52(1):24-34. PubMed ID: 18639964
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Prevalence and risk factors for allergic contact dermatitis to topical treatment in atopic dermatitis: a study in 641 children.
Mailhol C; Lauwers-Cances V; Rancé F; Paul C; Giordano-Labadie F
Allergy; 2009 May; 64(5):801-6. PubMed ID: 19183418
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
