2006
DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-925041
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Epikutantestung mit chemisch modifiziertem Kolophonium

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
6
0
2

Year Published

2010
2010
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
1
6
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…It is reported that 45.5% colophonium-allergic patients were FM PT positive (20). A possible reason for this apparent cross-allergy is the same fragrant components being in both FM and colophonium (20). Our study also showed that the positive PT rate to colophonium in the patients with positive FM PT is higher than that in negative ones.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 64%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…It is reported that 45.5% colophonium-allergic patients were FM PT positive (20). A possible reason for this apparent cross-allergy is the same fragrant components being in both FM and colophonium (20). Our study also showed that the positive PT rate to colophonium in the patients with positive FM PT is higher than that in negative ones.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 64%
“…Colophonium has been used as an indicator for fragrance allergy. Previous studies found that FM and balsam of Peru PT-positive rates were high in colophonium-positive PT patients (20). It is reported that 45.5% colophonium-allergic patients were FM PT positive (20).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Dermal contact sensitisation is seen with different types of rosins and modified rosins and their components as well as with GEGR, GEWR, and GETOR (e.g. Downs and Sansom, 1999, Gaefvert et al, 1994, Hausen and Mohnert, 1989Shao et al, 1993;Geier and Hausen, 2006;Illing et al, 2009). …”
Section: Other Studies/contact Sensitisationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dermal contact sensitisation is seen with different types of rosins and modified rosins and their components as well as with GEGR, GEWR, and GETOR (e.g. Downs and Sansom, 1999, Gaefvert et al, 1994, Hausen and Mohnert, 1989Shao et al, 1993;Geier and Hausen, 2006;Illing et al, 2009). Even though it was not possible to sensitise guinea pigs against purified abietic acid (Karlberg et al, 1985), Hausen and Mohnert (1989) found that of 44 dermatologic patients, 17 (39%) reacted positive to purified abietic acid as well as to standard rosin in a patch test.…”
Section: Other Studies/contact Sensitisationmentioning
confidence: 99%