149 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 33914959)
21. Clinical relevance of positive patch test reactions to lanolin: A ROAT study.
Uldahl A; Engfeldt M; Svedman C
Contact Dermatitis; 2021 Jan; 84(1):41-49. PubMed ID: 32844454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. The dose-response relationship between the patch test and ROAT and the potential use for regulatory purposes.
Fischer LA; Voelund A; Andersen KE; Menné T; Johansen JD
Contact Dermatitis; 2009 Oct; 61(4):201-8. PubMed ID: 19825091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Patch testing with hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (HICC) - a multicentre study of the Swedish Contact Dermatitis Research Group.
Engfeldt M; Hagvall L; Isaksson M; Matura M; Mowitz M; Ryberg K; Stenberg B; Svedman C; Bruze M
Contact Dermatitis; 2017 Jan; 76(1):34-39. PubMed ID: 27767215
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Quantitative patch and repeated open application testing in methyldibromo glutaronitrile-sensitive patients.
Schnuch A; Kelterer D; Bauer A; Schuster Ch; Aberer W; Mahler V; Katzer K; Rakoski J; Jappe U; Krautheim A; Bircher A; Koch P; Worm M; Löffler H; Hillen U; Frosch PJ; Uter W
Contact Dermatitis; 2005 Apr; 52(4):197-206. PubMed ID: 15859992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. A negative breakdown test in a fragrance mix I-positive patient does not rule out contact allergy to its fragrance constituents.
Geier J; Schubert S; Schnuch A; Szliska C; Weisshaar E; Kränke B; Werfel T; Ruëff F; Schröder-Kraft C; Buhl T;
Contact Dermatitis; 2021 Jun; 84(6):407-418. PubMed ID: 33533485
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Patch testing with markers of fragrance contact allergy. Do clinical tests correspond to patients' self-reported problems?
Johansen JD; Andersen TF; Veien N; Avnstorp C; Andersen KE; Menné T
Acta Derm Venereol; 1997 Mar; 77(2):149-53. PubMed ID: 9111830
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. The significance of fragrance mix, balsam of Peru, colophony and propolis as screening tools in the detection of fragrance allergy.
Wöhrl S; Hemmer W; Focke M; Götz M; Jarisch R
Br J Dermatol; 2001 Aug; 145(2):268-73. PubMed ID: 11531790
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Patch testing with the European baseline series fragrance markers: a 2016 update.
Ung CY; White JML; White IR; Banerjee P; McFadden JP
Br J Dermatol; 2018 Mar; 178(3):776-780. PubMed ID: 28960261
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Identification of coumarin as the sensitizer in a patient sensitive to her own perfume but negative to the fragrance mix.
Mutterer V; Giménez Arnau E; Lepoittevin JP; Johansen JD; Frosch PJ; Menné T; Andersen KE; Bruze M; Rastogi SC; White IR
Contact Dermatitis; 1999 Apr; 40(4):196-9. PubMed ID: 10208506
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Fragrance allergy in patients with hand eczema - a clinical study.
Heydorn S; Johansen JD; Andersen KE; Bruze M; Svedman C; White IR; Basketter DA; Menné T
Contact Dermatitis; 2003 Jun; 48(6):317-23. PubMed ID: 14531870
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Recommendation to include fragrance mix 2 and hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral) in the European baseline patch test series.
Bruze M; Andersen KE; Goossens A; ;
Contact Dermatitis; 2008 Mar; 58(3):129-33. PubMed ID: 18279149
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Delayed-type hypersensitivity to fragrance materials in a select North American population.
Belsito DV; Fowler JF; Sasseville D; Marks JG; De Leo VA; Storrs FJ
Dermatitis; 2006 Mar; 17(1):23-8. PubMed ID: 16800274
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. A study of new fragrance mixtures.
Larsen W; Nakayama H; Fischer T; Elsner P; Frosch P; Burrows D; Jordan W; Shaw S; Wilkinson J; Marks J; Sugawara M; Nethercott M; Nethercottdagger J
Am J Contact Dermat; 1998 Dec; 9(4):202-6. PubMed ID: 9810019
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Methyldibromoglutaronitrile allergy: relationship between patch test and repeated open application test thresholds.
Fischer LA; Johansen JD; Menné T
Br J Dermatol; 2008 Nov; 159(5):1138-43. PubMed ID: 18795931
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Patch testing with a new fragrance mix detects additional patients sensitive to perfumes and missed by the current fragrance mix.
Frosch PJ; Pirker C; Rastogi SC; Andersen KE; Bruze M; Svedman C; Goossens A; White IR; Uter W; Arnau EG; Lepoittevin JP; Menné T; Johansen JD
Contact Dermatitis; 2005 Apr; 52(4):207-15. PubMed ID: 15859993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Non-mix fragrances are top sensitizers in consecutive dermatitis patients - a cross-sectional study of the 26 EU-labelled fragrance allergens.
Bennike NH; Zachariae C; Johansen JD
Contact Dermatitis; 2017 Nov; 77(5):270-279. PubMed ID: 28511284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Patch testing with fine fragrances: comparison with fragrance mix, balsam of Peru and a fragrance series.
Trattner A; David M
Contact Dermatitis; 2003 Dec; 49(6):287-9. PubMed ID: 15025700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Frequency of and trends in fragrance allergy over a 15-year period.
Nardelli A; Carbonez A; Ottoy W; Drieghe J; Goossens A
Contact Dermatitis; 2008 Mar; 58(3):134-41. PubMed ID: 18279150
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Immediate contact reactions to fragrance mix constituents and Myroxylon pereirae resin.
Tanaka S; Matsumoto Y; Dlova N; Ostlere LS; Goldsmith PC; Rycroft RJ; Basketter DA; White IR; Banerjee P; McFadden JP
Contact Dermatitis; 2004 Jul; 51(1):20-1. PubMed ID: 15291827
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Relevance of positive patch-test reactions to fragrance mix.
Devos SA; Constandt L; Tupker RA; Noz KC; Lucker GP; Bruynzeel DP; Schuttelaar ML; Kruyswijk MR; van Zuuren EJ; Vink J; Coenraads PJ; Kiemeney LA; van der Valk PG
Dermatitis; 2008; 19(1):43-7. PubMed ID: 18346396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
