[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
of the consequence of alleged patch test sensitization. Contact
Phaseolus vulgaris in a farmer - a case report. Ann Agric Environ
Dermatitis. 2006; 55: 30-5.
Med. 2000; 7: 55-9.
66. Menne T, Dooms-Goossens A, Wahlberg JE i wsp. How large
45. Rpiewak R, Dutkiewicz J. Occupational airborne and hand
a proportion of contact sensitivities are diagnosed with the
dermatitis to hop (Humulus lupulus) with non-occupational
European standard series? Contact Dermatitis 1992; 26: 201-2.
relapses. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2002; 9: 249-52.
67. Sherertz EF, Swartz SM. Is the screening patch test tray still
46. Rpiewak R, Skórska C, Góra A i wsp. Young farmers with cellular
worth using? J Am Acad Dermatol. 1993; 29:1057-8.
reactivity to airborne microbes suffer more frequently from work-
related skin symptoms and allergic dermatitis. Ann Agric Environ 68. Rudzki E, Kleniewska D. Polski zestaw alergenów
Med. 2001; 8: 255-9. kontaktowych. Przegl Dermatol. 1970; 57: 751-4.
47. Gupta AK, Madzia SE, Batra R. Etiology and management of 69. Tosti A, Vincenzi C, Peluso AM. Accidental diagnosis of
seborrheic dermatitis. Dermatology. 2004; 208: 89-93. aluminium sensitivity with Finn Chambers. Contact Dermatitis.
1990; 23: 48-9.
48. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W i wsp. National rates and regional
differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. 70. Veien NK, Hattel T, Justesen O, Norholm A. Aluminium allergy.
Population-adjusted frequencies of sensitization (PAFS) in 40,000 Contact Dermatitis. 1986;15: 295-7.
patients from a multicenter study (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis.
71. Veien NK. Routine patch testing with AlCl3. Contact Dermatitis.
1997; 37: 200-9.
1996; 35:126.
Rpiewak R. Alergia kontaktowa diagnostyka i postêpowanie 125
72. Lachapelle JM, Antoine JL. Problems raised by the simultaneous 93. Christensen OB, Wall LM. Open, closed and intradermal testing
reproducibility of positive allergic patch test reactions in man. in nickel allergy. Contact Dermatitis. 1987; 16: 21-6.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989; 21: 850-4.
94. Herbst RA, Lauerma AI, Maibach HI. Intradermal testing in the
73. Lazarov A, David M, Abraham D, Trattner A. Comparison of diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis. A reappraisal. Contact
reactivity to allergens using the TRUE Test and IQ chamber Dermatitis. 1993; 29:1-5.
system. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;56:140-5.
95. Christensen OB, Moller H. External and internal exposure to the
74. TRUE Test Study Group. Comparative multicenter studies with antigen in the hand eczema of nickel allergy. Contact Dermatitis.
TRUE Test and Finn Chambers in eight Swedish hospitals. J Am 1975; 1:136-41.
Acad Dermatol. 1989; 21: 846-9.
96. Wanscher B. Contact dermatitis from propolis. Br J Dermatol.
75. van der Valk PG, Devos SA, Coenraads PJ. Evidence-based 1976; 94: 451-5.
diagnosis in patch testing. Contact Dermatitis. 2003; 48:121-5.
97. Hannuksela M, Salo H. The repeated open application test
76. Diepgen TL, Coenraads PJ. Sensitivity, specificity and positive (ROAT). Contact Dermatitis. 1986; 14: 221-7.
predictive value of patch testing: the more you test, the more
98. Ale SI, Maibach HI. Clinical relevance in allergic contact
you get? ESCD Working Party on Epidemiology. Contact
dermatitis: an algorithmic approach. Dermatosen. 1995; 43:
Dermatitis. 2000; 42: 315-7.
119-21.
77. Bruze M, Isaksson M, Edman B i wsp. A study on expert
99. Ekelund AG, Moller H. Oral provocation in eczematous contact
reading of patch test reactions: inter-individual accordance.
allergy to neomycin and hydroxy-quinolines. Acta Derm
Contact Dermatitis. 1995; 32: 331-7.
Venereol. 1969; 49: 422-6.
78. van Strien GA, Korstanje MJ. Site variations in patch test
100. Veien NK, Hattel T, Justesen O, Norholm A. Oral challenge with
responses on the back. Contact Dermatitis. 1994; 31: 95-6.
metal salts. (I). Vesicular patch-test-negative hand eczema.
79. Hindsen M, Bruze M, Christensen OB. Individual variation in Contact Dermatitis. 1983; 9: 402-6.
nickel patch test reactivity. Am J Contact Dermat. 1999; 10:
101. Veien NK, Hattel T, Justesen O, Norholm A. Oral challenge with
62-7.
metal salts. (II). Various types of eczema. Contact Dermatitis.
80. Aberer W. Die falsch-positive Epikutantest-Reaktion. Derm 1983; 9: 407-10.
Beruf Umwelt. 1988; 36:13-6.
102. Veien NK, Hattel T, Justesen O, Norholm N. Oral challenge with
81. Damian DL, Barnetson RS, Halliday GM. Effects of low-dose balsam of Peru. Contact Dermatitis. 1985;12: 104-7.
ultraviolet radiation on in vivo human cutaneous recall responses.
103. Moller H, Ohlsson K, Linder C i wsp. The flare-up reactions
Australas J Dermatol. 2001; 42:161-7.
after systemic provocation in contact allergy to nickel and gold.
82. Green C. The effect of topically applied corticosteroid on irritant Contact Dermatitis. 1999; 40: 200-4.
and allergic patch test reactions. Contact Dermatitis. 1996; 35:
104. Dorado Bris JM, Aragues MM, Sols CM, Garcia DA. Contact
331-3.
sensitivity to pyrazinobutazone (Carudol) with positive oral
83. Anveden I, Lindberg M, Andersen KE i wsp. Oral prednisone provocation test. Contact Dermatitis. 1992; 26: 355-6.
suppresses allergic but not irritant patch test reactions in
105. Lindemann M, Bohmer J, Zabel M, Grosse-Wilde H. ELISpot:
individuals hypersensitive to nickel. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;
a new tool for the detection of nickel sensitization. Clin Exp
50: 298-303.
Allergy. 2003; 33: 992-8.
84. Mitchell JC. The angry back syndrome: eczema creates eczema.
106. Rpiewak R, Moed H, von Blomberg BME i wsp. Allergic contact
Contact Dermatitis. 1975; 1:193-4.
dermatitis to nickel: modified in vitro test protocols for better
85. Bruynzeel DP, van Ketel WG, von Blomberg M i wsp. Angry detection of allergen-specific response. Contact Dermatitis. 2007;
back or the excited skin syndrome. A prospective study. J Am 56: 63-9.
Acad Dermatol. 1983; 8: 392-7.
107. Rustemeyer T, von Blomberg BM, van Hoogstraten IM i wsp.
86. Brasch J, Schnuch A, Uter W. Patch-test reaction patterns in Analysis of effector and regulatory immune reactivity to nickel.
patients with a predisposition to atopic dermatitis. Contact Clin Exp Allergy. 2004; 34:1458-66.
Dermatitis. 2003; 49: 197-201.
108. Wall LM. Spot tests and chemical analyses for allergen evaluation.
87. Czarnecka-Operacz M, Bator-Wegner M, Silny W. Atopy patch W: Textbook of Contact Dermatitis. Rycroft RJ, Menne T, Frosch
test reaction to airborne allergens in the diagnosis of atopic PJ (red.) Springer, Berlin 1995: 277-285.
dermatitis. Acta Dermatovenerol Croat. 2005;13: 3-16.
109. Moed H, Boorsma DM, Tensen CP i wsp. Increased CCL27-
88. Turjanmaa K, Darsow U, Niggemann B i wsp. EAACI/GA2LEN CCR10 expression in allergic contact dermatitis: implications for
position paper: present status of the atopy patch test. Allergy. local skin memory. J Pathol. 2004; 204: 39-46.
2006; 61:1377-84.
110. Mutschler E. Farmakologia i toksykologia. Urban i Partner,
89. Osterballe M, Andersen KE, Bindslev-Jensen C. The diagnostic Wroc³aw 2004: 727-750 (t³um. R Rpiewak i M Wielosz).
accuracy of the atopy patch test in diagnosing hypersensitivity
111. Munkvad M. A comparative trial of Clinitar versus
to cow s milk and hen s egg in unselected children with and without
hydrocortisone cream in the treatment of atopic eczema. Br
atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004; 51: 556-62.
J Dermatol. 1989;121: 763-6.
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]