Thimerosal – Is it really irrelevant?
Recently, several investigators claimed that thimerosal is one of the most irrelevant allergens existing in screening for contact dermatitis. 508 patients who were suspected to have allergic contact dermatitis were patch tested at our clinic. They completed a questionnaire including medical, demogra...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Slodownik, Dan [verfasserIn] Ingber, Arieh [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erschienen: |
Oxford, UK; Malden, USA: Munksgaard International Publishers ; 2005 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Umfang: |
Online-Ressource |
|---|
| Reproduktion: |
2005 ; Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
In: Contact dermatitis - Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1975, 53(2005), 6, Seite 0 |
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:53 ; year:2005 ; number:6 ; pages:0 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00591.x |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
NLEJ242524001 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLEJ242524001 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20210707160353.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 120427s2005 xx |||||o 00| ||und c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00591.x |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLEJ242524001 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Slodownik, Dan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Thimerosal – Is it really irrelevant? |
| 264 | 1 | |a Oxford, UK; Malden, USA |b Munksgaard International Publishers |c 2005 | |
| 300 | |a Online-Ressource | ||
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Recently, several investigators claimed that thimerosal is one of the most irrelevant allergens existing in screening for contact dermatitis. 508 patients who were suspected to have allergic contact dermatitis were patch tested at our clinic. They completed a questionnaire including medical, demographic and occupational details. We used the standard tray of chemotechnique diagnostics (Malmö, Sweden) and additional series, which were case relevant. The relevance of the allergic reaction to thimerosal was scored from 1 to 6. 19 patients (3.7%) had an allergic reaction to thimerosal. 6 (31.5%) had a definite relevance and 8 (42.1%) had a probable relevance. Only 3 patients (15.8%) had an irrelevant reaction. SPIN value (significance–prevalence index number) was 2281. We found a high proportion of mechanics (42.1%) among the patients who had positive reaction to thimerosal (P < 0.0001). Although previous reports found thimerosal highly irrelevant, our daily experience being supported by the above data indicates that positive reactions to thimerosal could be relevant for many patients. | ||
| 533 | |d 2005 |f Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |7 |2005|||||||||| | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a allergic contact dermatitis | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ingber, Arieh |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t Contact dermatitis |d Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1975 |g 53(2005), 6, Seite 0 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)NLEJ243927118 |w (DE-600)2027120-7 |x 1600-0536 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:53 |g year:2005 |g number:6 |g pages:0 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00591.x |q text/html |x Verlag |z Deutschlandweit zugänglich |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a ZDB-1-DJB | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NL_ARTICLE | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 53 |j 2005 |e 6 |h 0 | ||
| author_variant |
d s ds a i ai |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:16000536:2005----::hmrslstely |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2005 |
| publishDate |
2005 |
| allfields |
10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00591.x doi (DE-627)NLEJ242524001 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Slodownik, Dan verfasserin aut Thimerosal – Is it really irrelevant? Oxford, UK; Malden, USA Munksgaard International Publishers 2005 Online-Ressource nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Recently, several investigators claimed that thimerosal is one of the most irrelevant allergens existing in screening for contact dermatitis. 508 patients who were suspected to have allergic contact dermatitis were patch tested at our clinic. They completed a questionnaire including medical, demographic and occupational details. We used the standard tray of chemotechnique diagnostics (Malmö, Sweden) and additional series, which were case relevant. The relevance of the allergic reaction to thimerosal was scored from 1 to 6. 19 patients (3.7%) had an allergic reaction to thimerosal. 6 (31.5%) had a definite relevance and 8 (42.1%) had a probable relevance. Only 3 patients (15.8%) had an irrelevant reaction. SPIN value (significance–prevalence index number) was 2281. We found a high proportion of mechanics (42.1%) among the patients who had positive reaction to thimerosal (P < 0.0001). Although previous reports found thimerosal highly irrelevant, our daily experience being supported by the above data indicates that positive reactions to thimerosal could be relevant for many patients. 2005 Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |2005|||||||||| allergic contact dermatitis Ingber, Arieh verfasserin aut In Contact dermatitis Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1975 53(2005), 6, Seite 0 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ243927118 (DE-600)2027120-7 1600-0536 nnns volume:53 year:2005 number:6 pages:0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00591.x text/html Verlag Deutschlandweit zugänglich Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 53 2005 6 0 |
| spelling |
10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00591.x doi (DE-627)NLEJ242524001 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Slodownik, Dan verfasserin aut Thimerosal – Is it really irrelevant? Oxford, UK; Malden, USA Munksgaard International Publishers 2005 Online-Ressource nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Recently, several investigators claimed that thimerosal is one of the most irrelevant allergens existing in screening for contact dermatitis. 508 patients who were suspected to have allergic contact dermatitis were patch tested at our clinic. They completed a questionnaire including medical, demographic and occupational details. We used the standard tray of chemotechnique diagnostics (Malmö, Sweden) and additional series, which were case relevant. The relevance of the allergic reaction to thimerosal was scored from 1 to 6. 19 patients (3.7%) had an allergic reaction to thimerosal. 6 (31.5%) had a definite relevance and 8 (42.1%) had a probable relevance. Only 3 patients (15.8%) had an irrelevant reaction. SPIN value (significance–prevalence index number) was 2281. We found a high proportion of mechanics (42.1%) among the patients who had positive reaction to thimerosal (P < 0.0001). Although previous reports found thimerosal highly irrelevant, our daily experience being supported by the above data indicates that positive reactions to thimerosal could be relevant for many patients. 2005 Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |2005|||||||||| allergic contact dermatitis Ingber, Arieh verfasserin aut In Contact dermatitis Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1975 53(2005), 6, Seite 0 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ243927118 (DE-600)2027120-7 1600-0536 nnns volume:53 year:2005 number:6 pages:0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00591.x text/html Verlag Deutschlandweit zugänglich Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 53 2005 6 0 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00591.x doi (DE-627)NLEJ242524001 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Slodownik, Dan verfasserin aut Thimerosal – Is it really irrelevant? Oxford, UK; Malden, USA Munksgaard International Publishers 2005 Online-Ressource nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Recently, several investigators claimed that thimerosal is one of the most irrelevant allergens existing in screening for contact dermatitis. 508 patients who were suspected to have allergic contact dermatitis were patch tested at our clinic. They completed a questionnaire including medical, demographic and occupational details. We used the standard tray of chemotechnique diagnostics (Malmö, Sweden) and additional series, which were case relevant. The relevance of the allergic reaction to thimerosal was scored from 1 to 6. 19 patients (3.7%) had an allergic reaction to thimerosal. 6 (31.5%) had a definite relevance and 8 (42.1%) had a probable relevance. Only 3 patients (15.8%) had an irrelevant reaction. SPIN value (significance–prevalence index number) was 2281. We found a high proportion of mechanics (42.1%) among the patients who had positive reaction to thimerosal (P < 0.0001). Although previous reports found thimerosal highly irrelevant, our daily experience being supported by the above data indicates that positive reactions to thimerosal could be relevant for many patients. 2005 Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |2005|||||||||| allergic contact dermatitis Ingber, Arieh verfasserin aut In Contact dermatitis Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1975 53(2005), 6, Seite 0 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ243927118 (DE-600)2027120-7 1600-0536 nnns volume:53 year:2005 number:6 pages:0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00591.x text/html Verlag Deutschlandweit zugänglich Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 53 2005 6 0 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00591.x doi (DE-627)NLEJ242524001 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Slodownik, Dan verfasserin aut Thimerosal – Is it really irrelevant? Oxford, UK; Malden, USA Munksgaard International Publishers 2005 Online-Ressource nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Recently, several investigators claimed that thimerosal is one of the most irrelevant allergens existing in screening for contact dermatitis. 508 patients who were suspected to have allergic contact dermatitis were patch tested at our clinic. They completed a questionnaire including medical, demographic and occupational details. We used the standard tray of chemotechnique diagnostics (Malmö, Sweden) and additional series, which were case relevant. The relevance of the allergic reaction to thimerosal was scored from 1 to 6. 19 patients (3.7%) had an allergic reaction to thimerosal. 6 (31.5%) had a definite relevance and 8 (42.1%) had a probable relevance. Only 3 patients (15.8%) had an irrelevant reaction. SPIN value (significance–prevalence index number) was 2281. We found a high proportion of mechanics (42.1%) among the patients who had positive reaction to thimerosal (P < 0.0001). Although previous reports found thimerosal highly irrelevant, our daily experience being supported by the above data indicates that positive reactions to thimerosal could be relevant for many patients. 2005 Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |2005|||||||||| allergic contact dermatitis Ingber, Arieh verfasserin aut In Contact dermatitis Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1975 53(2005), 6, Seite 0 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ243927118 (DE-600)2027120-7 1600-0536 nnns volume:53 year:2005 number:6 pages:0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00591.x text/html Verlag Deutschlandweit zugänglich Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 53 2005 6 0 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00591.x doi (DE-627)NLEJ242524001 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb Slodownik, Dan verfasserin aut Thimerosal – Is it really irrelevant? Oxford, UK; Malden, USA Munksgaard International Publishers 2005 Online-Ressource nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier Recently, several investigators claimed that thimerosal is one of the most irrelevant allergens existing in screening for contact dermatitis. 508 patients who were suspected to have allergic contact dermatitis were patch tested at our clinic. They completed a questionnaire including medical, demographic and occupational details. We used the standard tray of chemotechnique diagnostics (Malmö, Sweden) and additional series, which were case relevant. The relevance of the allergic reaction to thimerosal was scored from 1 to 6. 19 patients (3.7%) had an allergic reaction to thimerosal. 6 (31.5%) had a definite relevance and 8 (42.1%) had a probable relevance. Only 3 patients (15.8%) had an irrelevant reaction. SPIN value (significance–prevalence index number) was 2281. We found a high proportion of mechanics (42.1%) among the patients who had positive reaction to thimerosal (P < 0.0001). Although previous reports found thimerosal highly irrelevant, our daily experience being supported by the above data indicates that positive reactions to thimerosal could be relevant for many patients. 2005 Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |2005|||||||||| allergic contact dermatitis Ingber, Arieh verfasserin aut In Contact dermatitis Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1975 53(2005), 6, Seite 0 Online-Ressource (DE-627)NLEJ243927118 (DE-600)2027120-7 1600-0536 nnns volume:53 year:2005 number:6 pages:0 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00591.x text/html Verlag Deutschlandweit zugänglich Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE AR 53 2005 6 0 |
| source |
In Contact dermatitis 53(2005), 6, Seite 0 volume:53 year:2005 number:6 pages:0 |
| sourceStr |
In Contact dermatitis 53(2005), 6, Seite 0 volume:53 year:2005 number:6 pages:0 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
allergic contact dermatitis |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Contact dermatitis |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Slodownik, Dan @@aut@@ Ingber, Arieh @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2005-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
NLEJ243927118 |
| id |
NLEJ242524001 |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">NLEJ242524001</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20210707160353.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">120427s2005 xx |||||o 00| ||und c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00591.x</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)NLEJ242524001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Slodownik, Dan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Thimerosal – Is it really irrelevant?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Oxford, UK; Malden, USA</subfield><subfield code="b">Munksgaard International Publishers</subfield><subfield code="c">2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Recently, several investigators claimed that thimerosal is one of the most irrelevant allergens existing in screening for contact dermatitis. 508 patients who were suspected to have allergic contact dermatitis were patch tested at our clinic. They completed a questionnaire including medical, demographic and occupational details. We used the standard tray of chemotechnique diagnostics (Malmö, Sweden) and additional series, which were case relevant. The relevance of the allergic reaction to thimerosal was scored from 1 to 6. 19 patients (3.7%) had an allergic reaction to thimerosal. 6 (31.5%) had a definite relevance and 8 (42.1%) had a probable relevance. Only 3 patients (15.8%) had an irrelevant reaction. SPIN value (significance–prevalence index number) was 2281. We found a high proportion of mechanics (42.1%) among the patients who had positive reaction to thimerosal (P < 0.0001). Although previous reports found thimerosal highly irrelevant, our daily experience being supported by the above data indicates that positive reactions to thimerosal could be relevant for many patients.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="533" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">2005</subfield><subfield code="f">Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005</subfield><subfield code="7">|2005||||||||||</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">allergic contact dermatitis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ingber, Arieh</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Contact dermatitis</subfield><subfield code="d">Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1975</subfield><subfield code="g">53(2005), 6, Seite 0</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)NLEJ243927118</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2027120-7</subfield><subfield code="x">1600-0536</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:53</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2005</subfield><subfield code="g">number:6</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00591.x</subfield><subfield code="q">text/html</subfield><subfield code="x">Verlag</subfield><subfield code="z">Deutschlandweit zugänglich</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-1-DJB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_NL_ARTICLE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">53</subfield><subfield code="j">2005</subfield><subfield code="e">6</subfield><subfield code="h">0</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| series2 |
Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005 |
| author |
Slodownik, Dan |
| spellingShingle |
Slodownik, Dan misc allergic contact dermatitis Thimerosal – Is it really irrelevant? |
| authorStr |
Slodownik, Dan |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)NLEJ243927118 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut |
| collection |
NL |
| publishPlace |
Oxford, UK; Malden, USA |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1600-0536 |
| topic_title |
Thimerosal – Is it really irrelevant? allergic contact dermatitis |
| publisher |
Munksgaard International Publishers |
| publisherStr |
Munksgaard International Publishers |
| topic |
misc allergic contact dermatitis |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc allergic contact dermatitis |
| topic_browse |
misc allergic contact dermatitis |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Contact dermatitis |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
NLEJ243927118 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Contact dermatitis |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)NLEJ243927118 (DE-600)2027120-7 |
| title |
Thimerosal – Is it really irrelevant? |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)NLEJ242524001 |
| title_full |
Thimerosal – Is it really irrelevant? |
| author_sort |
Slodownik, Dan |
| journal |
Contact dermatitis |
| journalStr |
Contact dermatitis |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2005 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
0 |
| author_browse |
Slodownik, Dan Ingber, Arieh |
| container_volume |
53 |
| physical |
Online-Ressource |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Slodownik, Dan |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00591.x |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
thimerosal – is it really irrelevant? |
| title_auth |
Thimerosal – Is it really irrelevant? |
| abstract |
Recently, several investigators claimed that thimerosal is one of the most irrelevant allergens existing in screening for contact dermatitis. 508 patients who were suspected to have allergic contact dermatitis were patch tested at our clinic. They completed a questionnaire including medical, demographic and occupational details. We used the standard tray of chemotechnique diagnostics (Malmö, Sweden) and additional series, which were case relevant. The relevance of the allergic reaction to thimerosal was scored from 1 to 6. 19 patients (3.7%) had an allergic reaction to thimerosal. 6 (31.5%) had a definite relevance and 8 (42.1%) had a probable relevance. Only 3 patients (15.8%) had an irrelevant reaction. SPIN value (significance–prevalence index number) was 2281. We found a high proportion of mechanics (42.1%) among the patients who had positive reaction to thimerosal (P < 0.0001). Although previous reports found thimerosal highly irrelevant, our daily experience being supported by the above data indicates that positive reactions to thimerosal could be relevant for many patients. |
| abstractGer |
Recently, several investigators claimed that thimerosal is one of the most irrelevant allergens existing in screening for contact dermatitis. 508 patients who were suspected to have allergic contact dermatitis were patch tested at our clinic. They completed a questionnaire including medical, demographic and occupational details. We used the standard tray of chemotechnique diagnostics (Malmö, Sweden) and additional series, which were case relevant. The relevance of the allergic reaction to thimerosal was scored from 1 to 6. 19 patients (3.7%) had an allergic reaction to thimerosal. 6 (31.5%) had a definite relevance and 8 (42.1%) had a probable relevance. Only 3 patients (15.8%) had an irrelevant reaction. SPIN value (significance–prevalence index number) was 2281. We found a high proportion of mechanics (42.1%) among the patients who had positive reaction to thimerosal (P < 0.0001). Although previous reports found thimerosal highly irrelevant, our daily experience being supported by the above data indicates that positive reactions to thimerosal could be relevant for many patients. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Recently, several investigators claimed that thimerosal is one of the most irrelevant allergens existing in screening for contact dermatitis. 508 patients who were suspected to have allergic contact dermatitis were patch tested at our clinic. They completed a questionnaire including medical, demographic and occupational details. We used the standard tray of chemotechnique diagnostics (Malmö, Sweden) and additional series, which were case relevant. The relevance of the allergic reaction to thimerosal was scored from 1 to 6. 19 patients (3.7%) had an allergic reaction to thimerosal. 6 (31.5%) had a definite relevance and 8 (42.1%) had a probable relevance. Only 3 patients (15.8%) had an irrelevant reaction. SPIN value (significance–prevalence index number) was 2281. We found a high proportion of mechanics (42.1%) among the patients who had positive reaction to thimerosal (P < 0.0001). Although previous reports found thimerosal highly irrelevant, our daily experience being supported by the above data indicates that positive reactions to thimerosal could be relevant for many patients. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U ZDB-1-DJB GBV_NL_ARTICLE |
| container_issue |
6 |
| title_short |
Thimerosal – Is it really irrelevant? |
| url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00591.x |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Ingber, Arieh |
| author2Str |
Ingber, Arieh |
| ppnlink |
NLEJ243927118 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00591.x |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T02:16:47.093Z |
| _version_ |
1803794206784749568 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">NLEJ242524001</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20210707160353.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">120427s2005 xx |||||o 00| ||und c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00591.x</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)NLEJ242524001</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Slodownik, Dan</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Thimerosal – Is it really irrelevant?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Oxford, UK; Malden, USA</subfield><subfield code="b">Munksgaard International Publishers</subfield><subfield code="c">2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Recently, several investigators claimed that thimerosal is one of the most irrelevant allergens existing in screening for contact dermatitis. 508 patients who were suspected to have allergic contact dermatitis were patch tested at our clinic. They completed a questionnaire including medical, demographic and occupational details. We used the standard tray of chemotechnique diagnostics (Malmö, Sweden) and additional series, which were case relevant. The relevance of the allergic reaction to thimerosal was scored from 1 to 6. 19 patients (3.7%) had an allergic reaction to thimerosal. 6 (31.5%) had a definite relevance and 8 (42.1%) had a probable relevance. Only 3 patients (15.8%) had an irrelevant reaction. SPIN value (significance–prevalence index number) was 2281. We found a high proportion of mechanics (42.1%) among the patients who had positive reaction to thimerosal (P < 0.0001). Although previous reports found thimerosal highly irrelevant, our daily experience being supported by the above data indicates that positive reactions to thimerosal could be relevant for many patients.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="533" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">2005</subfield><subfield code="f">Blackwell Publishing Journal Backfiles 1879-2005</subfield><subfield code="7">|2005||||||||||</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">allergic contact dermatitis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ingber, Arieh</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Contact dermatitis</subfield><subfield code="d">Oxford [u.a.] : Wiley-Blackwell, 1975</subfield><subfield code="g">53(2005), 6, Seite 0</subfield><subfield code="h">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)NLEJ243927118</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2027120-7</subfield><subfield code="x">1600-0536</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:53</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2005</subfield><subfield code="g">number:6</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00591.x</subfield><subfield code="q">text/html</subfield><subfield code="x">Verlag</subfield><subfield code="z">Deutschlandweit zugänglich</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-1-DJB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_NL_ARTICLE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">53</subfield><subfield code="j">2005</subfield><subfield code="e">6</subfield><subfield code="h">0</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.399419 |