The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Abstract
Background: Contact allergy and allergic contact dermatitis are frequent conditions in the general population. Objectives: To provide an updated estimate of the prevalence of contact allergy in the general population based on data from our previous review combined with new data from an updated search for relevant studies published between 2007 and 2017. Methods: Two authors independently searched PubMed for studies reporting on the prevalence of contact allergy in samples of the general population. Proportion meta‐analyses were performed to calculate the pooled prevalence estimates of contact allergy. Results: A total of 28 studies were included in the analysis, covering 20 107 patch tested individuals from the general population. Overall, the pooled prevalence of contact allergy was 20.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 16.8%‐23.7%). In children and adolescents (<18 years), the prevalence was 16.5% (95%CI: 13.6%‐19.7%). The prevalence was significantly higher in women (27.9% [95%CI: 21.7%‐34.5%]) than in men (13.2% [95%CI: 9.3%‐17.6%]). The most common allergen was nickel (11.4% [95%CI: 9.4%‐13.5%]), followed by fragrance mix I (3.5% [95%CI: 2.1%‐5.4%]), cobalt (2.7% [95%CI: 2.1%‐3.4%]), Myroxylon pereirae (1.8% [95%CI: 1.0%‐2.7%]), chromium (1.8% [95%CI: 1.3%‐2.6%]), p‐phenylenediamine (1.5% [95%CI: 1.0%‐2.1%]), methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (1.5% [95%CI: 0.8%‐2.5%]), and colophonium (1.3% [95%CI: 1.0%‐1.6%]). Conclusions: This meta‐analysis confirmed that at least 20% of the general population are contact‐allergic to common environmental allergens. It highlights the need for more effective preventive strategies for common allergens in consumer goods, cosmetics, and the workplace.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
(2014) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 17,633
The epidemiology of contact allergy in the general population – prevalence and main findings
Thyssen, J. P., Linneberg, A., Menné, T., & Johansen, J. D. (2007) · Contact Dermatitis · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0536.2007.01220.x · Cited by 680
Self-citationEpidemiology of contact allergy in adults
Schäfer, T., Böhler, E., Ruhdorfer, S., Weigl, L. B., Wessner, D., Filipiak, B., Wichmann, H. ‐., & Ring, J. (2001) · Allergy · doi:10.1034/j.1398-9995.2001.00086.x · Cited by 378
Prevalence of contact allergy in the general population in different European regions
Diepgen, T. L., Ofenloch, R. F., Bruze, M., Bertuccio, P., Cazzaniga, S., Coenraads, P.-J., Elsner, P., Goncalo, M., Svensson, Å., & Naldi, L. (2016) · British Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1111/bjd.14167 · Cited by 355
Nielsen, N. H., & Menné, T. (1992) · Acta Dermato-Venereologica · doi:10.2340/0001555572456460 · Cited by 310
North American Contact Dermatitis Group Patch Test Results 2013–2014
DeKoven, J. G., Warshaw, E. M., Belsito, D. V., Sasseville, D., Maibach, H. I., Taylor, J. S., Marks, J. G., Fowler, J. F., Mathias, C. G. T., DeLeo, V. A., et al. (2017) · Dermatitis® · doi:10.1097/der.0000000000000225 · Cited by 286
Quantitative Graphics in Statistics: A Brief History
Beniger, J. R., & Robyn, D. L. (1978) · The American Statistician · doi:10.1080/00031305.1978.10479235 · Cited by 243
Nickel allergy in adolescents in relation to orthodontic treatment and piercing of ears
Kerosuo, H., Kullaa, A., Kerosuo, E., Kanerva, L., & Hensten-Pettersen, A. (1996) · American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics · doi:10.1016/s0889-5406(96)70175-0 · Cited by 220
Nielsen, N. H., Linneberg, A., Menné, T., Madsen, F., Frølund, L., Dirksen, A., & Jørgensen, T. (2001) · Acta Dermato-Venereologica · doi:10.1080/000155501750208155 · Cited by 196
Cited by
Nickel: Human Health and Environmental Toxicology
Genchi, G., Carocci, A., Lauria, G., Sinicropi, M. S., & Catalano, A. (2020) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph17030679 · Cited by 1,602
Strzepa, A., Gurski, C. J., Dittel, L. J., Szczepanik, M., Pritchard, K. A., & Dittel, B. N. (2021) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2020.608871 · Cited by 26
The role of the environment in allergic skin disease
Faraz, K., Seely, M., & Marano, A. L. (2024) · Current Allergy and Asthma Reports · doi:10.1007/s11882-024-01147-9 · Cited by 20
Fragrance Allergens in Cosmetic Products Marketed for Children in Denmark
Botvid, S., Simonsen, A. B., Jørgensen, C., Müller, S., Kirkeby, C. S., Christensen, A. B., & Johansen, J. D. (2023) · Contact Dermatitis · doi:10.1111/cod.14397 · Cited by 15
Self-citationBurnett, C. L., Bergfeld, W. F., Belsito, D. V., Klaassen, C. D., Liebler, D. C., Marks, J. G., Peterson, L. A., Shank, R. C., Slaga, T. J., Snyder, P. W., et al. (2021) · International Journal of Toxicology · doi:10.1177/10915818211016382 · Cited by 12
Viltakis, V., & Kirchhof, M. G. (2026) · Contact Dermatitis · doi:10.1111/cod.70057 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Alinaghi, F., Bennike, N. H., Egeberg, A., Thyssen, J. P., & Johansen, J. D.
- Venue
- Contact Dermatitis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-10-29
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 77-85
- ISSN
- 0105-1873 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0536
- OpenAlex
- W2898924787
- Cited by
- 373
- References
- 27
- FWCI
- 4.02
- 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
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.
