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.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

157 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28271532)

  • 41. Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005-2006.
    Zug KA; Warshaw EM; Fowler JF; Maibach HI; Belsito DL; Pratt MD; Sasseville D; Storrs FJ; Taylor JS; Mathias CG; Deleo VA; Rietschel RL; Marks J
    Dermatitis; 2009; 20(3):149-60. PubMed ID: 19470301
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Positive patch test reactions to nickel, cobalt, and potassium dichromate in a series of 576 patients.
    Massone L; Anonide A; Borghi S; Isola V
    Cutis; 1991 Feb; 47(2):119-22. PubMed ID: 2001632
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Impact of contact sensitization in chronic spontaneous urticaria.
    Magen E; Mishal J; Menachem S
    Am J Med Sci; 2011 Mar; 341(3):202-6. PubMed ID: 21233694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Association of CD69 up-regulation on CD4+ Cla+ T cells versus patch test, strip patch test and clinical history in nickel sensitization.
    Dickel H; Kuss O; Kamphowe J; Altmeyer P; Höxtermann S
    Eur J Med Res; 2010; 15(7):303-8. PubMed ID: 20696642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Positive nickel patch tests in infants are of low clinical relevance and rarely reproducible.
    Mortz CG; Kjaer HF; Eller E; Osterballe M; Norberg LA; Høst A; Bindslev-Jensen C; Andersen KE
    Pediatr Allergy Immunol; 2013 Feb; 24(1):84-7. PubMed ID: 23331531
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Assessment of the allergEAZE(®) patch test compared to other conventional allergens.
    Serra-Baldrich E; Sáez-Martín LC; Suárez-Fernández RM;
    Actas Dermosifiliogr; 2015 May; 106(4):324-5. PubMed ID: 25482582
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. The reactivity of the back revisited. Are there differences in reactivity in different parts of the back?
    Björk AK; Bruze M; Engfeldt M; Nielsen C; Svedman C
    Contact Dermatitis; 2017 Jan; 76(1):19-26. PubMed ID: 27593358
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Contact sensitization of older patients in an academic department in Naples, Italy.
    Balato A; Balato N; Di Costanzo L; Ayala F
    Dermatitis; 2008; 19(4):209-12. PubMed ID: 18674456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Variability in patch test reactivity over time, falsely indicating patch test sensitization, in a patient tested with palladium salts.
    Engfeldt M; Tillman C; Hindsén M; Bruze M
    Contact Dermatitis; 2012 Aug; 67(2):109-11. PubMed ID: 22775547
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Diagnosis and prevalence of lanolin allergy.
    Miest RY; Yiannias JA; Chang YH; Singh N
    Dermatitis; 2013; 24(3):119-23. PubMed ID: 23665833
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Delayed hypersensitivity to palladium dichloride: 15-year retrospective study in a skin allergy unit.
    González-Ruiz L; Vergara De Caso E; Peña-Sánchez R; Silvestre-Salvador JF
    Contact Dermatitis; 2019 Oct; 81(4):249-253. PubMed ID: 31231808
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Stomatitis or systemically-induced contact dermatitis from metal wire in orthodontic materials.
    Veien NK; Borchorst E; Hattel T; Laurberg G
    Contact Dermatitis; 1994 Apr; 30(4):210-3. PubMed ID: 8033545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Risk factors for common contact allergens and patch test results using a modified European baseline series in patients tested during between 2000 and 2009 at Siriraj Hospital.
    Boonchai W; Iamtharachai P
    Asian Pac J Allergy Immunol; 2014 Mar; 32(1):60-5. PubMed ID: 24641292
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Patch-test reaction patterns in patients with a predisposition to atopic dermatitis.
    Brasch J; Schnuch A; Uter W
    Contact Dermatitis; 2003 Oct; 49(4):197-201. PubMed ID: 14996068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Validation of self-testing as a method to estimate the prevalence of nickel allergy.
    Josefson A; Svensson A; Färm G; Engfeldt M; Meding B
    Acta Derm Venereol; 2011 Sep; 91(5):526-30. PubMed ID: 21874219
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Nickel allergy: relationship between patch test and repeated open application test thresholds.
    Fischer LA; Johansen JD; Menné T
    Br J Dermatol; 2007 Oct; 157(4):723-9. PubMed ID: 17634081
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Positive concomitant test reactions to allergens in the standard patch test series.
    Landeck L; González E; Baden L; Neumann K; Schalock P
    Int J Dermatol; 2010 May; 49(5):517-9. PubMed ID: 20534085
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. [Skin reactivity in subjects sensitive to different concentrations of nickel, chromium and cobalt].
    Piela Z; Kieć-Swierczyńska M
    Med Pr; 1998; 49(5):457-63. PubMed ID: 9919605
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Value of patch testing in atopic dermatitis.
    el Samahy MH; el-Kerdani T
    Am J Contact Dermat; 1997 Sep; 8(3):154-7. PubMed ID: 9249284
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Diagnosing lanolin contact allergy with lanolin alcohol and Amerchol L101.
    Knijp J; Bruynzeel DP; Rustemeyer T
    Contact Dermatitis; 2019 May; 80(5):298-303. PubMed ID: 30624788
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.