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 *

118 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9771983)

  • 41. 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]  

  • 42. A stronger patch test elicitation reaction to the allergen hydroxycitronellal plus the irritant sodium lauryl sulfate.
    Heydorn S; Andersen KE; Johansen JD; Menné T
    Contact Dermatitis; 2003 Sep; 49(3):133-9. PubMed ID: 14678209
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Quantification of contact allergic inflammation: a comparison of existing methods with a scanning laser Doppler velocimeter.
    Quinn AG; McLelland J; Essex T; Farr PM
    Acta Derm Venereol; 1993 Feb; 73(1):21-5. PubMed ID: 8095745
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Allergic contact dermatitis due to nickel in a neoprene wetsuit.
    Corazza M; Virgili A
    Contact Dermatitis; 1998 Nov; 39(5):257. PubMed ID: 9840264
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. The significance of previous allergic contact dermatitis for elicitation of delayed hypersensitivity to nickel.
    Hindsén M; Bruze M; Christensen OB
    Contact Dermatitis; 1997 Sep; 37(3):101-6. PubMed ID: 9330814
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Strip patch testing does not affect reaction profiles of standard allergens.
    Dickel H; Kreft B; Geier J
    Contact Dermatitis; 2015 Jul; 73(1):36-43. PubMed ID: 25824375
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Ultrasound for assessment of allergic and irritant patch test reactions.
    Serup J; Staberg B
    Contact Dermatitis; 1987 Aug; 17(2):80-4. PubMed ID: 3308312
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Can a positive photopatch test be elicited by subclinical irritancy or allergy plus suberythemal UV exposure?
    Beattie PE; Traynor NJ; Woods JA; Dawe RS; Ferguson J; Ibbotson SH
    Contact Dermatitis; 2004; 51(5-6):235-40. PubMed ID: 15606647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. In vivo nickel allergic contact dermatitis: human model for topical therapeutics.
    Zhai H; Chang YC; Singh M; Maibach HI
    Contact Dermatitis; 1999 Apr; 40(4):205-8. PubMed ID: 10208508
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. 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]  

  • 51. Comparing reliabilities of strip and conventional patch testing.
    Dickel H; Geier J; Kreft B; Pfützner W; Kuss O
    Contact Dermatitis; 2017 Jun; 76(6):342-349. PubMed ID: 28271532
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Echographic evaluation of subclinical allergic patch test reactions.
    Seidenari S
    Contact Dermatitis; 1993 Sep; 29(3):156-7. PubMed ID: 8222631
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Allergic contact dermatitis in Iran.
    Kashani MN; Gorouhi F; Behnia F; Nazemi MJ; Dowlati Y; Firooz A
    Contact Dermatitis; 2005 Mar; 52(3):154-8. PubMed ID: 15811031
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. No skin reactions to mineral powders in nickel-sensitive subjects.
    Lodén M; Nilsson G; Parvardeh M; Neimert Carne K; Berg M
    Contact Dermatitis; 2012 Apr; 66(4):210-4. PubMed ID: 22404196
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Common contact sensitizers in Chandigarh, India. A study of 200 patients with the European standard series.
    Sharma VK; Chakrabarti A
    Contact Dermatitis; 1998 Mar; 38(3):127-31. PubMed ID: 9536402
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Flare-up reactions after oral challenge with nickel in relation to challenge dose and intensity and time of previous patch test reactions.
    Hindsén M; Bruze M; Christensen OB
    J Am Acad Dermatol; 2001 Apr; 44(4):616-23. PubMed ID: 11260535
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Is it possible to improve the prognosis in nickel contact dermatitis?
    Kalimo K; Lammintausta K; Jalava J; Niskanen T
    Contact Dermatitis; 1997 Sep; 37(3):121-4. PubMed ID: 9330818
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Allergic contact dermatitis due to nickel: descriptive study in a tertiary hospital, 2000-2010.
    García-Rabasco AE; Zaragozá-Ninet V; García-Ruíz R; de la Cuadra-Oyanguren J
    Actas Dermosifiliogr; 2014; 105(6):590-6. PubMed ID: 24530124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Reactivity to nickel sulfate at sodium lauryl sulfate pretreated skin sites is higher in atopics: an echographic evaluation by means of image analysis performed on 20 MHz B-scan recordings.
    Seidenari S
    Acta Derm Venereol; 1994 Jul; 74(4):245-9. PubMed ID: 7976078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Co-sensitivity between cobalt and other transition metals.
    Lisi P; Brunelli L; Stingeni L
    Contact Dermatitis; 2003 Mar; 48(3):172-3. PubMed ID: 12755743
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.