Contact @entity566 in XXXX .

@entity1 @entity13266 @entity3406 @entity566 @entity15608 @entity56 @entity48941 @entity10212 @entity72929
BACKGROUND: Recalcitrant @entity15608 may indicate contact @entity566 . OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of @entity56 ( @entity56 ) in @entity1 with @entity15608 and to identify the most relevant allergens. METHODS: We used an institutional database to identify @entity1 with @entity15608 who underwent patch testing between January 1, 2001, and August 31, 2011, and conducted a retrospective review of patch test results in these @entity1 . Additional data were obtained from institutional electronic medical records. RESULTS: Ninety-one @entity1 (70 [77%] female; mean age: 51 years) were included in the study. Almost half (41 [45%]) had a final diagnosis of @entity56 . Patch testing was performed in line with universally accepted methods, with application on day 1, allergen removal and an initial reading on day 3, and the final reading on day 5. The allergens of most significance were fragrance mix, Myroxylon pereirae resin, @entity72929 , @entity48941 , and @entity13266 . @entity3406 was the most relevant metal allergen. CONCLUSIONS: Contact @entity566 is an important consideration in recalcitrant @entity10212 . Fragrances, antioxidants, and preservatives dominated the list of relevant allergens in our @entity1 . @entity3406 and gold were among the top 10 allergens. Almost half (45%) of these @entity1 had a final diagnosis of @entity56 . Patch testing beyond the oral complete series should be undertaken in any investigation of @entity15608 .
