Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 179

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Natural rubber latex allergy among health care workers: A systematic review of the evidence

Open access
Bousquet, Jean, Flahault, Antoine, Vandenplas, Olivier, Ameille, Jacques, Duron, Jean-Jacques, Pecquet, Corine, Chevrie, Karine, Annesi-Maesano, Isabella·2006·Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

Abstract

BACKGROUND Natural rubber latex is a recognized allergen, but a recent meta-analysis failed to find any association between latex exposure and allergy in health care workers (HCWs). OBJECTIVES A meta-analysis was carried out under the auspices of the French National Regulatory Authority to assess the allergic risk induced by latex gloves in HCWs. METHODS The risk of work-related exposure to latex for the development of latex allergy was assessed. Prevalence and incidence rates of latex sensitization or allergy were compared in HCWs and in the general population. Exposure-response relationships were assessed in HCWs. RESULTS Latex allergy was found in 4.32% (range, 4.01% to 4.63%) of HCWs and in 1.37% (range, 0.43% to 2.31%) of the general population. Latex-positive skin prick test responses ranged from 2.1% to 3.7% in the general population and from 6.9% to 7.8% for the HCWs. HCWs exposed to latex showed an increased risk of hand dermatitis (odds ratio [OR], 2.46; 95% CI, 2.11-2.86), asthma or wheezing (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.15-2.08), rhinoconjunctivitis (OR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.97-3.81), and at least one generic symptom (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.09-1.47). Sensitization to latex was significantly associated with asthma and rhinoconjunctivitis. By contrast, exposure to latex was not associated with a significantly increased risk of positive skin prick test responses to latex (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.94-2.30). CONCLUSION HCWs have an increased risk of sensitization and allergic symptoms to latex. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS Prevention of latex allergy in HCWs is needed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jaci.2006.03.048

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 179

Metadata

Authors
Bousquet, J., Flahault, A., Vandenplas, O., Ameille, J., Duron, J.-J., Pecquet, C., Chevrie, K., & Annesi-Maesano, I.
Venue
Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-08
Volume
118
Issue
2
Pages
447-454
ISSN
0091-6749 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2077419992
Cited by
179
References
3
FWCI
2.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Natural rubber latex allergy among health care workers: A systematic review of the evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jaci.2006.03.048
The paper
Bousquet, J., Flahault, A., Vandenplas, O., Ameille, J., Duron, J.-J., Pecquet, C., Chevrie, K., & Annesi-Maesano, I. (2006). Natural rubber latex allergy among health care workers: A systematic review of the evidence. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2006.03.048

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.