Organization of Patch Testing in Office Practice

  • Niels K. Veien


When used properly, patch testing is a valuable diagnostic procedure. Dermatology departments in which patients with occupational dermatoses are regularly treated ordinarily have extensive supplies of patch test materials and a well-trained staff to carry out the test procedure.


Contact Dermatitis Patch Test Office Practice Occupational Skin Disease Patch Test Result 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lepine EM (1976) Results of routine office patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 2: 89–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Veien NK, Hattel T, Justesen O, N¢rholm A (1982) Eksemârsager pâvist ved hjwlp of lappeprver i en dermatologisk speciallxgepraksis. Ugeskr Læger 144: 1683–1688Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Veien NK, Hattel T, Justesen O, N¢rholm A (1987) Diagnostic procedures for eczema patients. Contact Dermatitis 17: 35–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cronin E (1986) Some practical supplementary trays for special occupations. Semin Dermatol 5: 243–248Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heydenreich G, Larsen PO (1977) Erhvervseksem ph en gummifabrik. Ugeskr Læger 139: 1021–1027PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bajaj AK, Gupta SC (1986) Contact hypersensitivity to topical antibacterial agents. Int J Dermatol 125: 103–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rycroft RJG (1986) False reactions to nonstandard patch tests. Semin Dermatol 5: 225–230Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Veien NK (1986) Why test with environmental agents? A review of recent studies concerning the value of routine testing in dermatologic practice. Semin Dermatol 5: 231–242Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mitchell J, Rook A (1979) Botanical dermatology. Greengrass, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krook G (1977) Occupational dermatitis from Lactuca sativa (lettuce) and Cichorium (endive). Contact Dermatitis 3: 27–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Temesvâri E, Soos G, Podànyi B, Kovàcs, Nemeth I (1978) Contact urticaria provoked by balsam of Peru. Contact Dermatitis 4: 65–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Veien NK, Hattel T, Justesen O, N¢rholm A (1983) Causes of eczema in the food industry. Derm Beruf Umwelt 31: 85–86Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hjorth N, Roed-Petersen J (1976) Occupational protein contact dermatitis in food handlers. Contact Dermatitis 2: 28–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Warin RP, Smith RJ (1982) Chronic urticaria investigations with patch and challenge tests. Contact Dermatitis 8: 117–121PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Forsbeck M, Skog E (1977) Immediate reactions to patch tests with balsam of Peru. Contact Dermatitis 3: 201–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Niinimäki A (1987) Scratch-chamber tests in food handler dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 16: 11–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jolliffe DS (1981) A patch test reagent storage cabinet. Contact Dermatitis 7: 171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Epstein E (1975) A patch test closet. Contact Dermatitis 1: 177–179PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wenerstein G, Thune P, Jansén CT, Brodthagen H (1986) Photocontact dermatitis: current status with emphasis on allergic contact photosensitivity ( CPS) occurrence, allergens, and practical phototesting. Semin Dermatol 5: 277–289Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rietschel RL, Adams RM, Maibach HI, Storrs F, Rosenthal LE (1988) The case for patch test readings beyond day 2. J Am Acad Dermatol 18: 42–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bruynzeel DP, Van Ketel WG, Von Blomberg-van der Flier BME, Scheper RJ (1981) The angry back syndrome — a retrospective study. Contact Dermatitis 7: 293–297Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dooms-Goossens A (1989) Computers and dermatology. Semin Dermatol 8: 65–133Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Edman B (1988) The usefulness of detailed information to patients with contact allergy. Contact Dermatitis 19: 43–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Larsen WG (1989) How to instruct patients sensitive to fragrances. J Am Acad Dermatol 21: 880–884PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Adams RM, Fisher AA (1986) Contact allergen alternatives: 1986. J Am Acad Dermatol 14: 951–969PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Meneghini CL, Angelini (1977) Behaviour of contact allergy and new sensitivities on subsequent patch tests. Contact Dermatitis 3: 138–142Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rycroft RJG (1990) Is patch testing necessary? In: Champion RH, Pye RJ (eds) Recent advances in dermatology, vol 8. Churchill Livingstone, London, pp 101–111Google Scholar
  28. Adams RM (1990) Occupational skin disease, 2nd edn. Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  29. Benezra C, Ducombs G, Sell Y, Foussereau JV (1985) Plant contact dermatitis. Decker, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  30. Cronin E (1980) Contact dermatitis. Churchill Livingstone, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  31. De Groot AC (1980) Patch testing: Test concentrations and vehicles for 2800 allergens. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  32. Fisher AA (1986) Contact dermatitis, 3rd edn. Lea and Febiger, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  33. Fregert S (1981) Manual of contact dermatitis, 2nd edn. Munksgaard, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  34. Hausen BM (1988) Allergiepflanzen — Pflanzenallergene: Handbuch und Atlas der Allergieinduzierenden Wild-und Kulturpflanzen. Ecomed, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  35. Maibach HI (ed) (1987) Occupational and industrial dermatology, 2nd edn. Yearbook, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  36. Mitchell J, Rook R (1979) Botanical dermatology. Greengrass, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  37. Champion RH, Burton JL, Ebling FJG (1992) Textbook of dermatology, 5th edn. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Niels K. Veien

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations