Información de la revista
Vol. 101. Núm. 1.
Páginas 59-75 (enero - febrero 2010)
Compartir
Compartir
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Vol. 101. Núm. 1.
Páginas 59-75 (enero - febrero 2010)
Original article
Acceso a texto completo
Epidemiology of Contact Dermatitis: Prevalence of Sensitization to Different Allergens and Associated Factors
Epidemiología de la dermatitis de contacto: prevalencia de sensibilización a diferentes alérgenos y factores asociados
Visitas
8609
Ma.T. Bordel-Gómeza,
Autor para correspondencia
maitebordel@aedv.es

Corresponding author.
, A. Miranda-Romerob, J. Castrodeza-Sanzc
a Servicio de Dermatología, Complejo Asistencial de Zamora, Zamora, Spain
b Servicio de Dermatología, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain
c Servicio de Medicina Preventiva, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain
Este artículo ha recibido
Información del artículo
Resumen
Bibliografía
Descargar PDF
Estadísticas
Abstract
Background

In clinical practice, contact dermatitis is a relatively common skin complaint, whose prevalence has increased in recent years. Study by patch testing is essential for diagnosis of contact sensitization.

Objectives

To study the prevalence of sensitization to different allergens in a standard battery and observe the influence of different epidemiological and clinical variables on contact sensitization. A large number of allergens were included in our battery in order to detect new sensitizations whose prevalence might justify further study.

Material and methods

This was a retrospective, observational, epidemiological study of 1092 patients, conducted in our skin allergy unit between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2005. All patients were studied with a battery of 51 allergens. We assessed the following variables: sex, age, type of referral, occupation, site and course of skin lesions, personal and family history of atopy, positive patch tests, clinical significance, diagnosis, source of sensitization, and occupational relationship.

Results

At least 1 positive result was found in 55% of the patients, and 55.7% presented contact dermatitis in one of its clinical variants: allergic contact dermatitis (28.2%), irritant contact dermatitis (20.1%), photoallergic contact dermatitis (2.2%), and phototoxic contact dermatitis (1.2%). The most prevalent allergens were nickel sulfate (29.3%), palladium chloride (11.7%), cobalt chloride (10.8%), potassium dichromate (7.5%), fragrance blends (6.3%), and p-phenylenediamine (6.1%).

A positive occupational relationship was found in 41.1%, and 21.3% of the patients studied were diagnosed with occupational contact dermatitis. Metalworkers, construction workers, and professional hairdressers were the most strongly represented groups. The most common source of sensitization was contact with metallic objects, followed by drugs, cosmetics, and rubber items. Female sex was the only independent variable that had a significant influence on the risk of contact sensitization in general.

Conclusion

Women became sensitized at a younger age than men, and the frequency of positive results in the patch tests increased with age, reaching a maximum at between 60 and 69 years of age, when the greatest rate of sensitization occurred. Comparison of our results with other Spanish data showed a progressive and constant increase in sensitization to nickel sulfate, fragrance blends, balsam of Peru, and Colophonium, and a decrease in sensitization to potassium dichromate. The inclusion of new allergens such as palladium chloride, diallyl disulfide, and p-toluene sulfonamide formaldehyde improved the sensitivity of the standard battery in the detection of contact sensitization. We therefore recommend further studies of these allergens.

Keywords:
Contact dermatitis
Allergic contact dermatitis
Contact allergens
Epidemiology
Standard battery
Patch tests
Resumen
Introducción

El eccema de contacto (EC) constituye una enfermedad cutánea relativamente frecuente en la práctica clínica, cuya prevalencia ha aumentado en los últimos años. El estudio mediante pruebas epicutáneas (PE) es fundamental e imprescindible en el diagnóstico de la sensibilización de contacto.

Objetivos

Estudiar la prevalencia de sensibilización a diferentes alérgenos de la serie de pruebas estándar y observar la influencia de diferentes variables epidemiológicas y clínicas en la sensibilización de contacto. Introducimos un amplio número de alérgenos en nuestra serie de pruebas con la finalidad de detectar nuevas sensibilizaciones, cuya prevalencia justifique un estudio más detallado de éstos.

Material y métodos

Se realizó un estudio epidemiológico, observacional y retrospectivo de 1.092 pacientes, llevado a cabo en nuestra unidad de alergia cutánea desde el 1 de enero de 2000 hasta el 31 de diciembre de 2005. Se estudió a todos los pacientes con una serie de pruebas compuesta por 51 alérgenos. Valoramos las siguientes variables: sexo, edad, procedencia, profesión, localización y evolución de las lesiones cutáneas, antecedentes personales y familiares de atopia, positividad de las PE, relevancia clínica, diagnóstico, origen de la sensibilización y su relación profesional.

Resultados

El 55% de los pacientes estudiados tuvo alguna positividad y el 55,7% presentó EC en alguna de sus variedades clínicas: eccema alérgico de contacto (28,2%), eccema irritativo de contacto (20,1%), fotodermatitis alérgica de contacto (2,2%) y fotodermatitis tóxica de contacto (1,2%). Los alérgenos más prevalentes fueron sulfato de níquel (29,3%), cloruro de paladio (11,7%), cloruro de cobalto (10,8%), dicromato potásico (7,5%), mezcla de perfumes (6,3%) y parafenilendiamina (6,1%). El 41,1% de los pacientes con EC tuvo una relación profesional positiva y el 21,3% del total de los pacientes estudiados se diagnosticó de dermatitis de contacto profesional; los metalúrgicos, los trabajadores de la construcción y los peluqueros fueron los profesionales más representativos.

El origen más frecuente de las sensibilizaciones fue el contacto con objetos metálicos, seguido de los medicamentos, los cosméticos y los objetos de goma.

El sexo femenino fue la única variable independiente que influyó de forma significativa en la sensibilización de contacto en general.

Conclusiones

Las mujeres se sensibilizaron más precozmente que los hombres, y la prevalencia de positividad de las PE aumentó con la edad, y alcanzó el máximo a los 60-69 años, intervalo en el que también se encontró el mayor índice de sensibilización. Al comparar nuestros resultados con los nacionales, observamos un aumento progresivo y constante de la sensibilización al sulfato de níquel, a la mezcla de perfumes, al bálsamo del Perú y a la colofonia y un descenso en la sensibilización al dicromato potásico.

La introducción de nuevos alérgenos, como el cloruro de paladio, el dialil disulfuro y la resina de paratolueno sulfonamida formaldehído, mejoró la sensibilidad de la serie de pruebas estándar en la detección de la sensibilización de contacto. Por esto, aconsejamos más estudios sobre estos alérgenos.

Palabras clave:
Eccema de contacto
Dermatitis alérgica de contacto
Alérgenos de contacto
Epidemiología
Serie de pruebas estándar
Pruebas epicutáneas
El Texto completo está disponible en PDF
References
[1.]
C. Robert, T. Kupper.
Inflammatory skin disease, T cells and immune surveillance.
N Engl J Med, 341 (1999), pp. 1817-1828
[2.]
M.A. Farage, A. Katsarou, H. Maibach.
Sensory, clinical and physiological factors in sensitive skin: A review.
Contact Dermatitis, 55 (2006), pp. 1-14
[3.]
S. Astner, N. Burnett, F. Rius-Díaz, A.G. Doukas, S. González, E. González.
Irritant contact dermatitis induced by a common household irritant: A noninvasive evaluation of ethnic variability in skin response.
J Am Acad Dermatol, 54 (2006), pp. 458-465
[4.]
E. Dauden-Tello, L. Ríos-Buceta, J. Fernández-Herrera, A. García-Díez.
Mecanismos inmunológicos en el eccema alérgico de contacto. II. Fase aferente.
Actas Dermosifiliogr, 87 (1996), pp. 291-297
[5.]
P.D.H. Gell, R.R.A. Coombs, R. Lachman.
Clinical aspects of immunology.
3 ed., Blackwell Scientificic Publication, (1975),
[6.]
R. Kalish, P. Askenase.
Molecular mechanisms of CD8+ T cell mediated delayed hypersensitivity: Implications for allergies, asthma and autoimmunity.
J Allergy Clin Immunol, 103 (1999), pp. 192-199
[7.]
Jadassohn J. Zur Kenntnis tier medicamentos en Dermatosen. In: Jarisch und Neisser, eds. Verhandlungen der deutschen dermatologischen Gesellschaft 5. Kongress Graz. 1895; p. 103-29.
[8.]
B. Bloch.
The role of idiosyncrasy and allergy in dermatology.
Arch Dermatol Syphilol, 19 (1929), pp. 175-177
[9.]
J.M. Gíménez-Camarasa.
Contact dermatitis group in Spain.
Contact Dermatitis, 3 (1977), pp. 63-66
[10.]
B.A. Brod, A.D. Dailey, A.F. Fransway, A.J. Scheman, E.F. Sherertz.
To patch or not to patch: What is your threshold for patch testing?.
Am J Contact Dermat, 10 (1999), pp. 94-97
[11.]
J.E.R. Britton, S.M. Wilkinson, J.S.C. English, D.J. Gawkrodger, A.D. Ormerod, J.E. Samsom, et al.
The British standard series of contact dermatitis allergens: Validation in clinical practice and value for clinical governance.
Br J Dermatol, 148 (2003), pp. 259-264
[12.]
A. Lazarov.
European standard series patch test results from a contact dermatitis clinic in Israel during the 7 year period from 1998 to 2004.
Contact Dermatitis, 55 (2006), pp. 73-76
[13.]
M.N. Kashani, F. Gorouhi, F. Behnia, M.J. Nazemi, Y. Dowlati, A. Firooz.
Allergic contact dermatitis in Iran.
Contact Dermatitis, 52 (2005), pp. 154-158
[14.]
M. Krasteva, J. Kehren, M. Ducluzeau, M. Sayag, M. Cacciapuotti, H. Akiba, et al.
Contact dermatitis. II. Clinical aspects and diagnosis.
Eur J Dermatol, 9 (1999), pp. 144-159
[15.]
L.A. Drake, W. Dorner, R.W. Goltz, G.F. Graham, C.W. Lewis, D.W. Pariser, et al.
Guidelines of care for contact dermatitis.
J Am Acad Dermatol, 32 (1995), pp. 109-113
[16.]
A. Ciconte, A. Mar, J.J. Horton.
Evaluation of the Skin and Cancer Foundation standard series in the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis.
Contact Dermatitis, 45 (2001), pp. 329-332
[17.]
E. Akasya-Hillenbrand, E. Özkaya-Bayazit.
Patch test results in 542 patients with suspected contact dermatitis in Turkey.
Contact Dermatitis, 46 (2002), pp. 17-23
[18.]
I. Hussain, Z. Rani, T. Rashid, T.S. Haroon.
Suitability of the European Standard series of patch test allergens in Pakistani patients.
Contact Dermatitis, 46 (2002), pp. 50-51
[19.]
S. Wöhrl, E. Hemmer, M. Focke, M. Götz, R. Jarisch.
Patch testing in children, adults and the elderly: Influence of age and sex on sensitization patterns.
Pediatric Dermatol, 20 (2003), pp. 119-123
[20.]
F. Wantke, W. Hemmer, R. Jarisch, M. Götz.
Patch test reactions in children, adults and the elderly. A comparative study in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis.
Contact Dermatitis, 34 (1996), pp. 316-319
[21.]
Y.V. Saripalli, F. Achen, D.V. Belsito.
The detection of clinically relevant contact allergens using a standard series screening tray of twenty-three allergens.
J Am Acad Dermatol, 49 (2003), pp. 65-69
[22.]
L.F. Li, J. Guo, J. Wang.
Environmental contact factors in eczema and the results of patch testing Chinese patients with a modified European standard series of allergens.
Contact Dermatitis, 51 (2004), pp. 22-25
[23.]
M.D. Pratt, D.V. Belsito, V.A. DeLeo, J.F. Fowler, A.F. Fransway, H.I. Maibach, et al.
North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 2001-2002 study periods.
Dermatitis, 15 (2004), pp. 176-183
[24.]
J.G. Marks, D.V. Belsito, V.A. DeLeo, J.F. Fowler, A.F. Fransway, H.I. Maibach, et al.
North American Contact Dermatitis Group patch-test results, 1998 to 2000.
Am J Contact Dermat, 14 (2003), pp. 59-62
[25.]
W. Uter, J. Hegewald, W. Aberer, F. Ayala, A.J. Bircher, J. Brasch, et al.
The European standard series in 9 European countries, 2002/2003 - First results of the European surveillance system on contact allergies.
Contact Dermatitis, 53 (2005), pp. 136-145
[26.]
D.P. Bruynzeel, T.L. Diepgen, K.E. Andersen, F.M. Brandao, M. Bruze, P.J. Frosch, et al.
Monitoring the European standard series in 10 centres 1996-2000.
Contact Dermatitis, 53 (2005), pp. 146-152
[27.]
A. Machovcova, E. Dastychova, A. Vojtechovska, J. Reslova, D. Smejkalova, J. Vaneckova, et al.
Common contact sensitizers in the Czech Republic. Patch test results in 12.058 patients with suspected contact dermatitis.
Contact Dermatitis, 53 (2005), pp. 162-166
[28.]
A. Akyol, A. Boyvat, Y. Peksari, E. Gürgey.
Contact sensitivity to standard series allergens in 1.038 patients with contact dermatitis in Turkey.
Contact Dermatitis, 52 (2005), pp. 333-337
[29.]
I. Kuljanac, E. Knezevic, H. Cvitanovic.
Epicutaneous patch test results in patients with allergic contact dermatitis in Karlovac County - a retrospective survey.
Acta Dermatovenereol Croat, 14 (2006), pp. 156-159
[30.]
Grupo portugués de estudio de dermatitis de contacto.
Boletín Informativo do GPEDC, (2005),
[31.]
A. Miranda-Romero, A. Aguirre, A. Alomar, L. Conde-Salazar, J. De La Cuadra, V. Fernández Redondo, et al.
Serie estándar de alérgenos del GEIDC: resultados de su aplicación en 4.310 pacientes en el año 2000.
Boletín Informativo del GEIDC, 29 (2002), pp. 11-14
[32.]
B. García-Bravo, L. Conde-Salazar, J. De La Cuadra-Oyanguren, V. Fernández-Redondo, J.M. Fernández-Vozmediano, D. Guimaraens, et al.
Estudio epidemiológico de la dermatitis alérgica de contacto en España (2001).
Actas Dermosifiliogr, 95 (2004), pp. 14-24
[33.]
M.D. Sánchez-Aguilar Rojas.
Epidemiología de la dermatitis de contacto en el área sanitaria de Santiago de Compostela. [tesis doctoral].
Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, (1995),
[34.]
E. Serra-Baldrich, M. Lluch, A. Valero, A. Malet, J.M. Giménez-Camarasa.
Contact dermatitis: Clinical review of 800 patients tested using standard European series.
Allergol Immunopathol, 23 (1995), pp. 67-72
[35.]
R.M. Díaz-Díaz, C.M. González-Herrada, S. Urrutia-Hernando, C. Soria-Martínez, M. Martín-González, C. García-García, et al.
Epidemiología del eczema alérgico de contacto en la provincia de Toledo.
Actas Dermosifiliogr, 82 (1991), pp. 401-404
[36.]
J. Franch-Nadal, J.C. Álvarez-Torices, F. Álvarez-Guisasola, J. Villamar-Berceruelo, F. Diego-Domínguez, M.A. Rodríguez-Prieto.
Panorámica epidemiológica de las dermatitis de contacto en el área sanitaria de León.
Actas Dermosifiliogr, 82 (1991), pp. 151-155
[37.]
J.L. Felechosa-Antuña, J.M. Arribas-Castrillo, M. Casas-Marín, S. Laviano-Menéndez, J. Sánchez del Río, A. Barthe-Aza.
Estudio de la sensibilidad de contacto en pacientes dermatológicos del Valle del Nalón (Área VIII del Mapa Sanitario del Principado de Asturias).
Actas Dermosifiliogr, 81 (1990), pp. 269-272
[38.]
P.D. Shenefelt.
Limits of ICD-9-CM code usefulness in epidemiological studies of contact and other types of dermatitis.
Am J Contact Dermat, 9 (1998), pp. 176-178
[39.]
D.V. Belsito.
Occupational contact dermatitis: Etiology, prevalence, and resultant impairment/disability.
J Am Acad Dermatol, 53 (2005), pp. 303-313
[40.]
Declaración de Helsinki: recomendaciones para guiar a los médicos en la investigación biomédica en seres humanos. 18.a Asamblea Médica Mundial (Helsinki, 1964). Amended during its latest revision by the 52nd General Assembly of the World Medical Association in Edinburgh, Scotland in 2000.. [Cited 2008 Oct 30]. Available from: http://www.wma.net/s/policy/b3.htm.
[41.]
W. Uter, A. Schnunch, O. Gefeller.
Guidelines for the descriptive presentation and statistical analysis of contact allergy data.
Contact Dermatitis, 51 (2004), pp. 47-56
[42.]
Ma.T. Bordel-Gómez, A. Miranda-Romero, J. Castrodeza-Sanz.
Isolated and concurrent prevalence of sensitization to transition metals in a Spanish population.
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol, 22 (2008), pp. 1452-1457
[43.]
S.P. Felter, M.K. Robinson, D.A. Basketter, F. Gerberick.
A review of the scientific basis for uncertainty factors for use in quantitative risk assessment for the induction of allergic contact dermatitis.
Contact Dermatitis, 47 (2002), pp. 257-266
[44.]
I. Besne, C. Descombes, L. Breton.
Effect of age and anatomical site on density of sensory innervation in human epidermis.
Arch Dermatol, 138 (2002), pp. 1445-1450
[45.]
B.S. Modjtahedi, S.P. Modjtahedi, H.I. Maibach.
The sex of the individual as a factor in allergic contact dermatitis.
Contact Dermatitis, 50 (2004), pp. 53-59
[46.]
V.A. DeLeo, S.C. Taylor, D.V. Belsito, J.F. Fowler, A.F. Fransway, H.I. Maibach, et al.
The effect of race and ethnicity on patch test results.
J Am Acad Dermatol, 46 (2002), pp. S107-S112
[47.]
G.I. Stables, A. Forsyth, R.S. Lever.
Patch testing in children.
Contact Dermatitis, 34 (1996), pp. 341-344
[48.]
N. Mozzanica, L. Rizzolo, G. Veneroni, R. Diotti, S. Hepeisen, A.F. Finzi.
HLA-A, B, C and DR antigens in nickel contact sensitivity.
Br J Dermatol, 122 (1990), pp. 309-313
[49.]
J.D. Johansen, T. Menné, J. Christophersen, K. Kaaber, N. Veien.
Changes in the pattern of sensitization to common contact allergens in Denmark between 1985-86 and 1997-97 with special view of the effect of preventive strategies.
Br J Dermatol, 142 (2000), pp. 490-495
[50.]
I.M. Van Hoogstraten, K.E. Andersen, B.M. Von Blomberg, D. Boden, D.P. Bruynzeel, D. Burrows, et al.
Reduced frequency of nickel allergy upon oral nickel contact at an early age.
Clin Exp Immunol, 85 (1991), pp. 441-445
[51.]
G. Heine, A. Schunuch, W. Uter, M. Worn.
Type-IV sensitization profile of individuals with atopic eczema: Results from the information Network of Departments of dermatology (INDK) and the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group (DKG).
[52.]
P. Montnémery, U. Nihlén, C.G. Löfdahl, P. Nyberg, A. Svensson.
Prevalence of hand eczema an adult Swedish population and the relationship to risk occupation and smoking.
Acta Derm Venereol, 85 (2005), pp. 429-432
[53.]
L.K. Dotterud, E.S. Falk.
Metal allergy in North Norwegian schoolchildren and its relationship with ear piercing and atopy.
Contact Dermatitis, 31 (1994), pp. 308-313
[54.]
M. Forsbeck, A. Hovmark, E. Skog.
Patch testing, tuberculin testing and sensitization with dinitrochlorobenzene and nitrosodimethylanilini of patients with atopic dermatitis.
Acta Derm Venereol, 56 (1976), pp. 135-138
[55.]
H.E. Jones, C.W. Lewis, S.L. McMarlin.
Allergic contact sensitivity in atopic dermatitis.
Arch Dermatol, 107 (1973), pp. 217-222
[56.]
D. Buchvald, L. Lundeberg.
Impaired responses of peripheral blood mononuclear cells to nickel in patients with nickel-allergic contact dermatitis and concomitant atopic dermatitis.
Br J Dermatol, 150 (2004), pp. 484-492
[57.]
L. Makela, K. Lammintausta, K. Kalimo.
Contact sensitivity and atopic dermatitis: Association with prognosis, a follow-up study in 801 atopic patients.
Contact Dermatitis, 56 (2007), pp. 76-80
[58.]
T.R. Thompson, D.V. Belsito.
Regional variation in prevalence and etiology of allergic contact dermatitis.
Am J Contact Dermat, 13 (2002), pp. 177-182
[59.]
M. Freireich-Atsman, M. David, A. Trattner.
Standard patch test results in patients with contact dermatitis in Israel: Age and sex differences.
Contact Dermatitis, 56 (2007), pp. 103-107
[60.]
J.M. Giménez-Camarasa, GEIDC.
First epidemiological study of contact dermatitis in Spain-1977.
Acta Dermato Venereol Suppl (Stockh), 59 (1979), pp. 33-37
[61.]
A. Schnuch, W. Uter.
Decrease in nickel allergy in Germany and regulatory interventions.
Contact Dermatitis, 49 (2003), pp. 107-108
[62.]
Original nickel directive (Council Directive 94/27/EC). [Cited 2008 Oct 30]. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu.
[63.]
W. Uter, A. Pfahlberg, O. Gefeler, J. Geier, A. Schunuch.
Risk factors for contact allergy to nickel-results of a multifactorial analysis.
Contact Dermatitis, 48 (2003), pp. 33-38
[64.]
J.D. Johansen, T. Menné, J. Christophersen, K. Kaaber, N. Veien.
Changes in the pattern of sensitization to common contact allergens in Denmark between 1985-86 and 1997-97 with special view of the effect of preventive strategies.
Br J Dermatol, 142 (2000), pp. 490-495
[65.]
M. Lindberg, B. Edman, T. Fischer, Stenberg.
Time trends in Swedish patch test data from 1992 to 2000. A multi-centre study based on age-and sex-adjusted results of the Swedish standard series.
Contact Dermatitis, 56 (2007), pp. 205-210
[66.]
F.L. Filon, D. Uderzo, E. Bagnato.
Sensitization to palladium chloride: A 10-year evaluation.
Am J Contact Dermat, 14 (2003), pp. 78-81
[67.]
E. Orion, H. Matz, R. Wolf.
Palladium allergy in an Israeli contact dermatitis clinic.
Contact Dermatitis, 49 (2003), pp. 216-217
[68.]
D.J. Grawkrodger, F.M. Lewis, M. Shah.
Contact sensitivity to nickel and other metals in jewelry reactors.
J Am Acad Dermatol, 43 (2000), pp. 31-36
[69.]
Ma.T. Bordel-Gómez, A. Miranda-Romero.
Palladium allergy: A sensitization frequent?.
Allergol Inmunopathol, 36 (2008), pp. 306-307
[70.]
M. Hindsén, A. Spirén, M. Bruze.
Cross-reactivity between nickel and palladium demonstrated by systemic administration of nickel.
Contact Dermatitis, 53 (2005), pp. 2-8
[71.]
C.A. Ruff, D.V. Belsito.
The impact of various patient factors on contact allergy to nickel, cobalt and chromate.
J Am Acad Dermatol, 55 (2006), pp. 32-39
[72.]
B. Kränke, W. Aberer.
Multiple sensitivities to metals.
Contact Dermatitis, 34 (1996), pp. 225
[73.]
J.M. Fernández-Vozmediano, J.C. Armario-Hita, A. Manrique-Plaza.
Alergic contact dermatitis fron diallyldisulphide.
Contact Dermatitis, 42 (2000), pp. 108-109
[74.]
M. Cabanillas, V. Fernández-Redondo, J. Toribio.
Allergic contact dermatitis to plants in a Spanish dermatology department: A 7-year review.
Contact Dermatitis, 55 (2006), pp. 84-91
[75.]
R.L. Rietschel, C.G. Mathias, J.F. Fowler, M. Pratt, J.S. Taylor, E.F. Sherertz, et al.
Relationship of occupation to contact dermatitis: Evaluation in patients tested from 1998 to 2000.
Am J Contact Dermat, 13 (2002), pp. 170-176
[76.]
B.D. Lushniak.
The importance of occupational skin diseases in the United States.
Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 76 (2003), pp. 325-330
[77.]
T.L. Diepgen.
Occupational skin diseases data in Europe.
Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 76 (2003), pp. 331-338
[78.]
L.F. Li, S.A. Sujan, J. Wang.
Detection of occupational allergic contact dermatitis by patch testing.
Contact Dermatitis, 49 (2003), pp. 189-193
Copyright © 2010. Academia Española de Dermatología y Venereología and Elsevier España, S.L.
Descargar PDF
Idiomas
Actas Dermo-Sifiliográficas
Opciones de artículo
Herramientas
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?