Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 265

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch-Test Results, 2001-2002 Study Period

Pratt, Melanie D., Belsito, Donald V., DeLeo, Vincent A., Fowler, Joseph F., Fransway, Anthony F., Maibach, Howard I., Marks, James G., Mathias, Toby C.G., Rietschel, Robert L., Sasseville, Denis, Sherertz, Elizabeth F., Storrs, Frances J., Taylor, James S., Zug, Kathryn·2004·Dermatitis

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Allergic contact dermatitis is a significant cause of cutaneous disease affecting many individuals in the home and at the workplace. Patch testing is the most worthwhile diagnostic tool for the evaluation of patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis. OBJECTIVE: This study reports the results of patch testing from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2002, by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG). METHODS: Patients were tested with an extended screening series of 65 allergens. A standardized patch-testing technique was used. Data from these patients were recorded on a standardized computer entry form and analyzed. RESULTS: Sixty-five allergens were tested on 4,913 patients. The top 10 allergens remain the same in this study period as in the 1999-2000 study period: nickel sulfate (16.7%), neomycin (11.6%), Myroxilon pereirae (balsam of Peru) (11.6%), fragrance mix (10.4%), thimerosal (10.2%), sodium gold thiosulfate (10.2%), quaternium-15 (9.3%), formaldehyde (8.4%), bacitracin (7.9%), and cobalt chloride (7.4%). Of the 4,913 patients tested, 69% had at least one positive allergic patch-test reaction. Of all patients, 15.8% had occupation-related dermatitis; 15.4% were determined to have irritant contact dermatitis, and 11.1% of the 15.4% had a relevant reaction to an occupational irritant. Of all patients tested, 16.7% had a relevant reaction to an allergen not in the NACDG standard series, and 5.5% had a relevant reaction to an occupational allergen not in the standard series. CONCLUSION: Our findings once again reinforce the need for a more comprehensive group of diagnostic allergens than those found in the standard screening kits. The usefulness of patch testing is enhanced when a greater number of allergens are tested, especially nonstandard allergens occupationally encountered.

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 · 10.1097/01206501-200412000-00003

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 265

Metadata

Authors
Pratt, M. D., Belsito, D. V., DeLeo, V. A., Fowler, J. F., Fransway, A. F., Maibach, H. I., Marks, J. G., Mathias, T. C. G., Rietschel, R. L., Sasseville, D., Sherertz, E. F., Storrs, F. J., Taylor, J. S., & Zug, K.
Venue
Dermatitis
Published
2004-12
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
176-183
ISSN
1710-3568 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1981217906
Cited by
265
References
0
FWCI
19.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch-Test Results, 2001-2002 Study Period. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01206501-200412000-00003
The paper
Pratt, M. D., Belsito, D. V., DeLeo, V. A., Fowler, J. F., Fransway, A. F., Maibach, H. I., Marks, J. G., Mathias, T. C. G., Rietschel, R. L., Sasseville, D., Sherertz, E. F., Storrs, F. J., Taylor, J. S., & Zug, K. (2004). North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch-Test Results, 2001-2002 Study Period. Dermatitis. https://doi.org/10.1097/01206501-200412000-00003

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.