177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8370975)
21. Cytokine induction in human epidermal keratinocytes exposed to contact irritants and its relation to chemical-induced inflammation in mouse skin.
Wilmer JL; Burleson FG; Kayama F; Kanno J; Luster MI
J Invest Dermatol; 1994 Jun; 102(6):915-22. PubMed ID: 8006454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. 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]
23. Skin irritancy from nonanoic acid.
Wahlberg JE; Wrangsjö K; Hietasalo A
Contact Dermatitis; 1985 Oct; 13(4):266-9. PubMed ID: 4085226
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Genome-wide expression analysis of human in vivo irritated epidermis: differential profiles induced by sodium lauryl sulfate and nonanoic acid.
Clemmensen A; Andersen KE; Clemmensen O; Tan Q; Petersen TK; Kruse TA; Thomassen M
J Invest Dermatol; 2010 Sep; 130(9):2201-10. PubMed ID: 20428187
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Effect of some irritants on human epidermal mitosis.
Fisher LB; Maibach HI
Contact Dermatitis; 1975 Oct; 1(5):273-6. PubMed ID: 1235276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Stratum corneum profiles of inflammatory mediators in patch test reactions to common contact allergens and sodium lauryl sulfate.
Koppes SA; Ljubojevic Hadzavdic S; Jakasa I; Franceschi N; Jurakić Tončić R; Marinović B; Brans R; Gibbs S; Frings-Dresen MHW; Rustemeyer T; Kezic S
Br J Dermatol; 2017 Jun; 176(6):1533-1540. PubMed ID: 28382616
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Dynamic changes in the epidermal OKT6 positive cells at mild irritant reactions in human skin.
Lindberg M; Emtestam L
Acta Derm Venereol; 1986; 66(2):117-20. PubMed ID: 2424233
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Phenotypic difference between allergic and irritant patch test reactions in man.
Scheynius A; Fischer T
Contact Dermatitis; 1986 May; 14(5):297-302. PubMed ID: 3461912
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. ETAF/interleukin-1 and epidermal lymphocyte chemotactic factor in epidermis overlying an irritant patch test.
Grønhøj Larsen C; Ternowitz T; Grønhøj Larsen F; Zachariae C; Thestrup-Pedersen K
Contact Dermatitis; 1989 May; 20(5):335-40. PubMed ID: 2788554
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Artificial disruption of skin barrier prior to irritant patch testing does not improve test design.
Gebhard KL; Effendy I; Löffler H
Br J Dermatol; 2004 Jan; 150(1):82-9. PubMed ID: 14746620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Patch testing with the irritant sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) is useful in interpreting weak reactions to contact allergens as allergic or irritant.
Geier J; Uter W; Pirker C; Frosch PJ
Contact Dermatitis; 2003 Feb; 48(2):99-107. PubMed ID: 12694214
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Sodium lauryl sulfate irritant patch tests: degree of inflammation at various times.
Dahl MV; Trancik RJ
Contact Dermatitis; 1977 Oct; 3(5):263-6. PubMed ID: 589998
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. Pustular irritant dermatitis due to croton oil. Evaluation of the role played by leukocytes and complement.
Torinuki W; Tagami H
Acta Derm Venereol; 1988; 68(3):257-60. PubMed ID: 2455422
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Individual and instrumental variations in irritant patch-test reactions--clinical evaluation and quantification by bioengineering methods.
Agner T; Serup J
Clin Exp Dermatol; 1990 Jan; 15(1):29-33. PubMed ID: 2311276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Phenotypic characterization in situ of inflammatory cells in allergic and irritant contact dermatitis in man.
Scheynius A; Fischer T; Forsum U; Klareskog L
Clin Exp Immunol; 1984 Jan; 55(1):81-90. PubMed ID: 6362938
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Immunopathological and ultrastructural findings in human allergic and irritant contact dermatitis.
Willis CM; Young E; Brandon DR; Wilkinson JD
Br J Dermatol; 1986 Sep; 115(3):305-16. PubMed ID: 3530310
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Study of cumulative irritant contact dermatitis in man utilizing open application on subclinically irritated skin.
Lee CH; Maibach HI
Contact Dermatitis; 1994 May; 30(5):271-5. PubMed ID: 8088139
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Increases in human epidermal DR+CD1+, DR+CD1-CD36+, and DR-CD3+ cells in allergic versus irritant patch test responses.
Gerberick GF; Rheins LA; Ryan CA; Ridder GM; Haren M; Miller C; Oelrich DM; von Bargen E
J Invest Dermatol; 1994 Oct; 103(4):524-9. PubMed ID: 7523531
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Electrical impedance as a potential tool to distinguish between allergic and irritant contact dermatitis.
Nyrén M; Kuzmina N; Emtestam L
J Am Acad Dermatol; 2003 Mar; 48(3):394-400. PubMed ID: 12637919
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Quantification of allergic and irritant patch test reactions using laser-Doppler flowmetry and erythema index.
Gawkrodger DJ; McDonagh AJ; Wright AL
Contact Dermatitis; 1991 Mar; 24(3):172-7. PubMed ID: 1868699
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
