Advertisement

Functional Skin Testing: the SMART Procedures

  • Swen Malte John
  • Hans J. Schwanitz

Keywords

Atopic Dermatitis Contact Dermatitis Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Allergic Contact Dermatitis Biophysical Parameter 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Agner T. Noninvasive measuring methods for the investigation of irritant patch test reactions. Acta Derm Venereol, Suppl 1992; 173:1–26Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bangha E, Hinnen U, Elsner P. Irritancy testing in occupational dermatology: comparison between two quick tests and the acute irritation induced by sodium lauryl sulphate. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1996; 76:450–452PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basketter DA, Miettinen J, Lahti A. Acute irritant reactivity in atopics and non-atopics. Contact Derm 1998; 38:253–256PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berndt U, Hinnen U, Iliev D, Elsner P. Is occupational irritant contact dermatitis predictable by cutaneous bioengineering methods? Results of the Swiss metalworkers eczema study (PROMETES). Dermatology 1999; 198:351–354PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Björnberg A (1968) Skin reactions to primary irritants in patients with hand eczema. Göteburg, IsaacsonsGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Björnberg A (1974) Low alkali resistance and slow alkali neutralization. Characteristics of the eczematous subject? Dermatol 149:90–100Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brandenburg S, Schwanitz HJ, John SM (1999) Empfehlungen für die Begutachtung von Berufskrankheiten nach BK 5101. Dermatosen 47:109–114Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bryld LE, Agner T, Kyvik KO, Brondsted L, Hindsberger C, Menné T. Hand eczema in twins: a questionnaire investigation. Br J Dermatol 2000; 142:298–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burckhardt W. Neue Untersuchungen über die Alkaliemp-findlichkeit der Haut. Dermatologica 1947; 94:8–96Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burckhardt W. Praktische und theoretische Bedeutung der Alkalineutralisations-und Alkaliresistenzproben. Arch Klin Derm 1964; 219:600–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 1960; 20:37–46Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, Erlbaum, 1988Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cua AB, Wilhelm KP, Maibach HI. Cutaneous sodium lauryl sulphate irritation potential: age and regional variability. Br J Dermatol 1990; 123:607–613PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Czernielewski A. L’importance pratique du test de résistance de la peau à l’action des alcalis. In: Symp Dermatol Pragae cum participatione internationali de morbis cutaneis professionalibus, Prag 1960. 1962; Exerpta Lectionum, pp 84–85Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Den Arend JA, de Haan AFJ, Malten KE. Seasonal transepidermal water loss and impedance of forearm skin in atopics and non-atopics. Contact Derm 1988; 19:376–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Frosch PJ. Hautirritation und empfindliche Haut. Grosse Verlag, Berlin, 1985Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Frosch PJ. Clinical Aspects of Irritant Contact Dermatitis. In: Rycroft RJG, Menné T, Frosch PJ (eds) Textbook of contact dermatitis, 3rd edn. Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2001; pp 313–354Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Frosch PJ, Pilz B. Irritant patch test techniques. In: Serup J, Jemec GBE (eds) Handbook of non-invasive methods and the skin. CRC press, Boca Raton, 1995; pp 587–591Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gloor M, Schnyder UW. Vererbung funktioneller Eigenschaften der Haut. Hautarzt 1977; 28:231–234PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Green DM, Swets JA. Signal detection theory and psychophysics, revised edn. Huntington, New York, 1974Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holst R, Möller H. One hundred twin pairs patch tested with primary irritants. Br J Dermatol 1975; 93:145–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Iliev D, Hinnen U, Elsner P. Reproducibility of a non-invasive skin irritancy test in a cohort of metalworker trainees. Contact Derm 1997; 36:101–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    John SM. Klinische und experimentelle Untersuchungen zur Diagnostik in der Berufsdermatologie. Konzeption einer wissenschaftlich begründeten Qualitätssicherung in der sozialmedizinischen Begutachtung. In: Schwanitz HJ (ed) Studien zur Prävention in Allergologie, Berufs-und Umweltdermatologie (ABU 4). Universitätsverlag Rasch, Osnabrück, 2001Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kolbe L, Kligman AM, Stoudemayer T. The sodium hydroxide erosion assay: a revision of the alkali resistance test. Arch Derm Res 1998; 290:382–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lange N, Weinstock MA. Statistical analysis of sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of a diagnostic test. In: Serup J, Jemec GBE (eds) Handbook of non-invasive methods and the skin. CRC press, Boca Raton, 1995; pp 33–41Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Locher G. Permeabilitätsprüfung der Haut Ekzemkranker und Hautgesunder für den neuen Indikator Nitrazingelb “Geigy”, Modizifierung der Alkaliresistenzprobe, pH-Verlauf in der Tiefe des stratum corneum. Dermatologica 1962; 124:159–182PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Löffler H, Effendy I, Happle R. Epikutane Testung mit Natriumlaurylsulfat. Nutzen und Grenzen in Forschung und Praxis. Hautarzt 1999; 50:769–778PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pinnagoda J, Tupker RA, Agner T, Serup J. Guidelines for transepidermal water loss (TEWL) measurement. Contact Dermatitis 1990; 22:164–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schultheiss E. Eigenuntersuchungen und Alkaliresistenzprobe. Arch Klin Exp Dermatol 1964; 219:638–648PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schulz D, Korting GW. Zur weiteren Kenntnis der Alkaliresistenz-Probe. Dermatosen 1987; 35:91–94Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schwanitz HJ. Atopic palmoplantar eczema. Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1988Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Spruit D, Malten KE. Injury to the skin by alkali and its regeneration. Dermatologica 1966; 132:124–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Spruit D, Malten KE. Estimation of the injury of human skin by alkaline liquids. Berufsdermatosen 1968; 16:11–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tupker RA, Pinnagoda J, Coenraads PJ, Nater JP. Susceptibility to irritants: role of barrier function, skin dryness and history of atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 1990; 123:199–205PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tupker RA, Willis C, Berardesca E, Lee CH, Fartasch M, Agner T, Serup J. Guidelines on sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) exposure tests. A report from the standardization group of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis. Contact Derm 1997; 37:53–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ummenhofer B. Zur Methodik der Alkaliresistenzprüfung. Dermatosen 1980; 28:104–109Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wacek A. Weitere Untersuchungen aus dem Gebiet der Alkali-und Säureabwehr der Haut, Dermatologica 1953; 107:369–417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wahlberg JE. Patch testing. In: Rycroft RJG, Menné T, Frosch PJ (eds) Textbook of contact dermatitis, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 2001; pp 435–468Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wilhelm KP, Pasche F, Surber C, Maibach HI. Sodium hydroxide-induced subclinical irritation. A test for evaluating stratum corneum barrier function. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1990; 70:463–467PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wilson D, Berardesca E, Maibach HI. In vivo transepidermal water loss and skin surface hydration in association of moisturization and soap effects. Int J Cosm Sci 1988; 10:201–211Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Swen Malte John
    • 1
  • Hans J. Schwanitz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Dermatology, Environmental Medicine and Health TheoryUniversity of OsnabrückOsnabrückGermany

Personalised recommendations