Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Contact Dermatitis pp 1–16Cite as

Databases and Networks: The Benefit for Research and Quality Assurance in Patch Testing

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:

Abstract

The systematic collection of patch test data, along with demographic and clinical information, within a (national) network has manifold advantages. As a starting point, results can be compared within the network to address possible quality problems. These could be indicated by systematically aberrant local sensitization frequencies not explained by local patient characteristics. Data of sufficient quality can be used and has been used in the past, as illustrated by several examples, for scientific analyses. Analyses may address time trends (surveillance) and subgroups or be multifactorial. Supplemental, external data sources can be linked to patch test data or used for patient management, as illustrated by some examples.

†Author Barry Statham is deceased (since 2014)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

References

  1. Bahmer FA (1989) The Homburg model for computer-based documentation in allergy. Semin Dermatol 8(2):99–100

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Beck MH, Hillier V (1989) Computer analysis of patients undergoing contact dermatitis investigation. Semin Dermatol 8(2):105

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Diepgen TL, Stüben O (1989) ALLDAT: an allergy data system for storage and analysis of test data with regard to epidemiological and occupational dermatology. Semin Dermatol 8(2):101–102

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gailhofer G (1989) Evaluation of patch test data using a personal computer system. Semin Dermatol 8(2):103–104

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sertoli A, Gola M, Martinelli C, Angelini G, Ayala F, Deledda S et al (1989) Epidemiology of contact dermatitis. Semin Dermatol 8(2):120–126

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Shaw S, Wilkinson JD (1989) Desk-top, stand-alone computer system for patch test clinic. Semin Dermatol 8(2):106–112

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Uter W, Diepgen T, Arnold R, Hillebrand O, Pietrzyk PM, Stüben O et al (1992) The informational network of departments of dermatology in Germany – a multicenter project for computer-assisted monitoring of contact allergy – electronic data processing aspects. Dermatologie in Beruf und Umwelt 40:142–149. Published erratum: p 197

    Google Scholar 

  8. Uter W, Schnuch A, Wilkinson M, Dugonik A, Dugonik B, Ganslandt T (2016) Registries in clinical epidemiology: the European surveillance system on contact allergies (ESSCA). Methods Inf Med 55(2):193–199

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Uter W (2017) Surveillance in occupational contact dermatitis. In: John SM, Johansen JD, Rustemeyer T, Elsner P, Maibach HI (eds) Kanerva’s occupational dermatology. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  10. Uter W, Geier J, Lessmann H, Schnuch A (2006) Is contact allergy to glyceryl monothioglycolate still a problem in Germany? Contact Dermatitis 55(1):54–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Geier J, Krautheim A, Uter W, Lessmann H, Schnuch A (2011) Occupational contact allergy in the building trade in Germany: influence of preventive measures and changing exposure. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 84(4):403–411

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dooms-Goossens A, Drieghe J, Degreef H, Dooms M (1990) The “codex-E”: an expert system for contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis 22(3):180–181

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Albert J, Geier J, Lehmann M, Schoof J (1997) Lernende Klassifizierungssysteme zur fallbasierten Auswertung von Allergietestdaten. Allergo J. 6:408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Dooms-Goossens A, Degreef H, Drieghe J, Dooms M (1980) Computer assisted monitoring of contact dermatitis patients. Contact Dermatitis 6(2):123–127

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Edman B (1989) DALUK: the Swedish computer system for contact dermatitis. Semin Dermatol 8(2):97–98

    Google Scholar 

  16. Rantanen T (1989) INFODERM–a microcomputer database system with Finnish product files. Semin Dermatol 8(2):94–95

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Uter W, Arnold R, Wilkinson J, Shaw S, Perrenoud D, Rili C et al (2003) A multilingual European patch test software concept: WinAlldat/ESSCA. Contact Dermatitis 49(5):270–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Uter W (2017) Classification of occupations. In: John SM, Johansen JD, Rustemeyer T, Elsner P, Maibach HI (eds) Kanerva’s occupational dermatology. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  19. Uter W, Hegewald J, Kränke B, Schnuch A, Gefeller O, Pfahlberg A (2008) The impact of meteorological conditions on patch test results with 12 standard series allergens (fragrances, biocides, topical ingredients). Br J Dermatol 158(4):734–739

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bruze M (2016) Thoughts on how to improve the quality of multicentre patch test studies. Contact Dermatitis 74(3):168–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Uter W, Becker D, Schnuch A, Gefeller O, Frosch PJ (2007) The validity of rating patch test reactions based on digital images. Contact Dermatitis 57:337–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Johansen JD, Aalto-Korte K, Agner T, Andersen KE, Bircher A, Bruze M et al (2015) European society of contact dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing – recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis 73(4):195–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Löffler H, Becker D, Brasch J, Geier J (2005) Simultaneous sodium lauryl sulphate testing improves the diagnostic validity of allergic patch tests. Results from a prospective multicentre study of the German contact dermatitis research group (deutsche Kontaktallergie-Gruppe, DKG). Br J Dermatol 152(4):709–719

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Brasch J, Henseler T (1992) The reaction index: a parameter to assess the quality of patch test preparations. Contact Dermatitis 27(3):203–204

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Geier J, Uter W, Lessmann H, Schnuch A (2003) The positivity ratio–another parameter to assess the diagnostic quality of a patch test preparation. Contact Derm 48(5):280–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Schnuch A, Geier J, Uter W, Frosch PJ, Lehmacher W, Aberer W et al (1997) National rates and regional differences in sensitization to allergens of the standard series. Population-adjusted frequencies of sensitization (PAFS) in 40,000 patients from a multicenter study (IVDK). Contact Dermatitis 37(5):200–209

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Smith HR, Wakelin SH, McFadden JP, Rycroft RJ, White IR (1999) A 15-year review of our MOAHLFA index. Contact Dermatitis 40(4):227–228

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Uter W, Gefeller O, Geier J, Schnuch A (2008) Changes of the patch test population (MOAHLFA index) in long-term participants of the information network of departments of dermatology, 1999–2006. Contact Dermatitis 59(1):56–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Uter W, Schwitulla J, Thyssen JP, Frosch PJ, Statham B, Schnuch A (2011) The ‘overall yield’ with the baseline series – a useful addition to the array of MOAHLFA factors describing departmental characteristics of patch tested patients. Contact Dermatitis 65(6):322–328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bhushan M, Beck MH (1999) An audit to identify the optimum referral rate to a contact dermatitis investigation unit. Br J Dermatol 141(3):570–572

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bourke J, Coulson I, English J (2009) British Association of Dermatologists therapy guidelines and audit subcommittee. Guidelines for the management of contact dermatitis: an update. Br J Dermatol 160(5):946–954

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Uter W, Mackiewicz M, Schnuch A, Geier J (2005) Interne Qualitätssicherung von Epikutantest-Daten des multizentrischen Projektes “Informationsverbund Dermatologischer Kliniken” (IVDK). Dermatologie in Beruf und Umwelt. 53:107–114

    Google Scholar 

  33. Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, Gefeller O (2002) IVDK study group. Epidemiology of contact allergy: an estimation of morbidity employing the clinical epidemiology and drug-utilization research (CE-DUR) approach. Contact Dermatitis 47(1):32–39

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Thyssen JP, Uter W, Schnuch A, Linneberg A, Johansen JD (2007) 10-year prevalence of contact allergy in the general population in Denmark estimated through the CE-DUR method. Contact Dermatitis 57(4):265–272

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Schnuch A, Gefeller O, Uter W (2005) A common and insidious side-effect: allergic contact dermatitis caused by bufexamac used in the treatment of dermatitis. Results from the information network of departments of dermatology (IDVK). Dtsch Med Wochenschr 130(50):2881–2886

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Uter W, Schnuch A (2011) EMA revokes marketing authorization for bufexamac. Contact Dermatitis 64(4):235–236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Zug KA, Warshaw EM, Fowler JF, Maibach HI, Belsito DL, Pratt MD et al (2009) Patch-test results of the north American contact dermatitis group 2005-2006. Dermatitis 20(3):149–160

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Uter W, Bauer A, Bensefa-Colas L, Brans R, Crépy MN, Giménez-Arnau A et al (2018) Pilot study on a new concept of documenting the clinical relevance of patch test results in contact dermatitis patients. Contact Dermatitis 79:370–377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wilkinson M, Gallo R, Goossens A, Johansen JD, Rustemeyer T, Sánchez-Pérez J et al (2018) A proposal to create an extension to the European baseline series. Contact Dermatitis 78(2):101–108

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Uter W, Balzer C, Geier J, Frosch PJ, Schnuch A (2005) Patch testing with patients’ own cosmetics and toiletries–results of the IVDK∗, 1998–2002. Contact Dermatitis 53(4):226–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Vigan M (1997) Les nouveaux allergenes des cosmetiques. La cosmetovigilance. Ann Dermatol Venereol 124:571–575

    Google Scholar 

  42. Vigan M, Castelain F (2014) Cosmetovigilance: definition, regulation and use “in practice”. Eur J Dermatol 24(6):643–649

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Lessmann H, Uter W, Geier J, Schnuch A (2006) Die Informations- und Dokumentationsstelle für Kontaktallergien (IDOK) des Informationsverbundes Dermatologischer Kliniken (IVDK). Dermatologie in Beruf und Umwelt. 54:160–166

    Google Scholar 

  44. Uter W, Goossens A, Gonçalo M, Johansen JD (2017) Guidelines for the presentation of contact allergy case reports. Contact Dermatitis 76(2):107–113

    Google Scholar 

  45. Geier J, Lessmann H, Frosch PJ, Pirker C, Koch P, Aschoff R et al (2003) Patch testing with components of water-based metalworking fluids. Contact Dermatitis 49(2):85–90

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Tiedemann KH, Zöllner M, Adam D, Becker D, Boveleth W, Eck E et al (2002) Empfehlungen für die Epikutantestung bei Verdacht auf Kontaktallergie durch Kühlschmierstoffe. 2. Hinweise zur Arbeitsstofftestung. Dermatologie in Beruf und Umwelt 50:180–189

    Google Scholar 

  47. Geier J, Lessmann H, Hillen U, Jappe U, Dickel H, Koch P et al (2004) An attempt to improve diagnostics of contact allergy due to epoxy resin systems. First results of the multicentre study EPOX 2002. Contact Dermatitis 51(5–6):263–272

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Gonçalo M, Pinho A, Agner T, Andersen KE, Bruze M, Diepgen T et al (2018) Allergic contact dermatitis caused by nail acrylates in Europe. EECDRG Study Contact Dermatitis 78(4):254–260

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Katugampola RP, Statham BN, English JS, Wilkinson MM, Foulds IS, Green CM et al (2005) A multicentre review of the footwear allergens tested in the UK. Contact Dermatitis 53(3):133–135

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Jong CT, Statham BN, Green CM, King CM, Gawkrodger DJ, Sansom JE et al (2007) Contact sensitivity to preservatives in the UK, 2004–2005: results of multicentre study. Contact Dermatitis 57(3):165–168

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Rolls S, Rajan S, Shah A, Bourke JF, Chowdhury MM, Ghaffar SA et al (2018) (Meth)acrylate allergy: frequently missed? Br J Dermatol 178(4):980–981

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Garcïa-Gavín J, Armario-Hita JC, Fernandez-Redondo V, Fernandez-Vozmediano JM, Sanchez-Pérez J, Silvestre JF et al (2011) Importance of epidemiologic surveillance in contact dermatitis: Spanish surveillance system on contact allergies. Actas Dermosifiliogr 102(1):19–23

    Google Scholar 

  53. García-Gavín J, Armario-Hita JC, Fernandez-Redondo V, Fernandez-Vozmediano JM, Sánchez-Pérez J, Silvestre JF et al (2011) Epidemiology of contact dermatitis in Spain. Results of the Spanish surveillance system on contact allergies for the year 2008. Actas Dermosifiliogr 102(2):98–105

    Google Scholar 

  54. Garcia-Gavin J, Armario-Hita JC, Fernandez-Redondo V, Fernandez-Vozmediano JM, Sanchez-Perez J, Silvestre JF et al (2011) Nickel allergy in Spain needs active intervention. Contact Dermatitis 64(5):289–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. DeKoven JG, Warshaw EM, Belsito DV, Sasseville D, Maibach HI, Taylor JS et al (2017) North American contact dermatitis group patch test results 2013–2014. Dermatitis 28(1):33–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Warshaw EM, Aschenbeck KA, DeKoven JG, Maibach HI, Taylor JS, Sasseville D et al (2018) Epidemiology of pediatric nickel sensitivity: Retrospective review of North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) data 1994–2014. J Am Acad Dermatol 79:664–671

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Piaserico S, Larese F, Recchia GP, Corradin MT, Scardigli F, Gennaro F et al (2004) Allergic contact sensitivity in elderly patients. Aging Clin Exp Res 16(3):221–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Le Coz CJ, Leclere JM, Arnoult E, Raison-Peyron N, Pons-Guiraud A, Vigan M et al (2002) Allergic contact dermatitis from shellac in mascara. Contact Dermatitis 46(3):149–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Uter W, Spiewak R, Cooper SM, Wilkinson M, Sánchez Pérez J, Schnuch A et al (2016) Contact allergy to ingredients of topical medications: results of the European surveillance system on contact allergies (ESSCA), 2009–2012. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 25(11):1305–1312

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Uter W, Amario-Hita JC, Balato A, Ballmer-Weber B, Bauer A, Belloni Fortina A et al (2017) European surveillance system on contact allergies (ESSCA): results with the European baseline series, 2013/14. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 31:1516–1525

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Thyssen JP, Johansen JD, Menné T (2007) Contact allergy epidemics and their controls. Contact Dermatitis 56(4):185–195

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Kwok C, Money A, Carder M, Turner S, Agius R, Orton D et al (2014) Cases of occupational dermatitis and asthma in beauticians that were reported to the health and occupation research (THOR) network from 1996 to 2011. Clin Exp Dermatol 39(5):590–595

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Dillarstone A (1997) Cosmetic preservatives. Contact Dermatitis 37(4):190

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Venables ZC, Bourke JF, Buckley DA, Campbell F, Chowdhury MMU, Abdul-Ghaffar S et al (2017) Has the epidemic of allergic contact dermatitis due to methylisothiazolinone reached its peak? Br J Dermatol 177(1):276–278

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Schwensen JF, White IR, Thyssen JP, Menné T, Johansen JD (2015) Failures in risk assessment and risk management for cosmetic preservatives in Europe and the impact on public health. Contact Dermatitis 73(3):133–141

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Urwin R, Craig S, Latheef F, Wilkinson M (2017) Methylisothiazolinone: the epidemic is declining – but not gone. Contact Dermatitis 76(5):301–302

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Wesley NO, Maibach HI (2003) Decreasing allergic contact dermatitis frequency through dermatotoxicologic and epidemiologic based intervention? Food Chem Toxicol 41(6):857–860

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Zachariae C, Engkilde K, Johansen JD, Menné T (2007) Primin in the European standard patch test series for 20 years. Contact Dermatitis 56(6):344–346

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Ahlström MG, Menné T, Thyssen JP, Johansen JD (2017) Nickel allergy in a Danish population 25 years after the first nickel regulation. Contact Derm 76(6):325–332.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Schnuch A, Uter W (2003) Decrease in nickel allergy in Germany and regulatory interventions. Contact Dermatitis 49(2):107–108

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Schuttelaar ML, Vogel TA, Rui F, Kręcisz B, Chomiczewska-Skora D, Kieć-Świerczynska M et al (2016) ESSCA results with the baseline series, 2002-2012: p-phenylenediamine. Contact Dermatitis 75(3):165–172

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Schnuch A, Uter W, Geier J, Lessmann H, Hillen U, Roßkamp E (2002) Kontaktallergien gegen Dispersionsfarben Epidemiologische Überwachung durch den IVDK – Intervention des Umweltbundesamtes und erfolgreiche Primärprävention ? Allergo J 11:39–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Christophersen J, Menné T, Tanghøj P, Andersen KE, Brandrup F, Kaaber K et al (1989) Clinical patch test data evaluated by multivariate analysis. Dan Contact Derm Group Contact Dermatitis 21(5):291–299

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Uter W, Gefeller O, Geier J, Schnuch A (2014) Contact sensitization to cobalt–multifactorial analysis of risk factors based on long-term data of the information network of departments of dermatology. Contact Dermatitis 71(6):326–337

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Uter W, Geier J, Bauer A, Schnuch A (2013) Risk factors associated with methylisothiazolinone contact sensitization. Contact Dermatitis 69(4):231–238

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Schwitulla J, Gefeller O, Schnuch A, Uter W (2013) Risk factors of polysensitization to contact allergens. Br J Dermatol 169(3):611–617

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. de Padua CA, Schnuch A, Nink K, Pfahlberg A, Uter W (2008) Allergic contact dermatitis to topical drugs–epidemiological risk assessment. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 17(8):813–821

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Schnuch A, Mildau G, Kratz EM, Uter W (2011) Risk of sensitization to preservatives estimated on the basis of patch test data and exposure, according to a sample of 3541 leave-on products. Contact Dermatitis 65(3):167–174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Schnuch A, Uter W, Lessmann H, Geier J (2015) Risk of sensitization to fragrances estimated on the basis of patch test data and exposure, according to volume used and a sample of 5,451 cosmetic products. Flavour Fragr J 30:208–217

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  80. Reich K, Westphal G, König IR, Mössner R, Krüger U, Ziegler A et al (2003) Association of allergic contact dermatitis with a promoter polymorphism in the IL16 gene. J Allergy Clin Immunol 112(6):1191–1194

    Google Scholar 

  81. Westphal GA, Rihs HP, Schaffranek A, Zeiler T, Werfel T, Heratizadeh A et al (2016) A variant of the CXCL11 gene may influence susceptibility to contact allergy, particularly in polysensitized patients. Contact Dermatitis 75(5):303–307

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Schwensen JF, Friis UF, Menné T, Flyvholm MA, Johansen JD (2017) Contact allergy to preservatives in patients with occupational contact dermatitis and exposure analysis of preservatives in registered chemical products for occupational use. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 90(4):319–333

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Brandorff NP, Flyvholm MA, Beck ID, Skov T, Bach E (1995) National survey on the use of chemicals in the working environment: estimated exposure events. Occup Environ Med 52(7):454–463

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Erlangen, Germany

    Wolfgang Uter

  2. Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), University Medicine Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany

    Axel Schnuch

  3. Department of Dermatology, Hospital del Mar, IMAS, Universitat Autònoma, Barcelona, Spain

    Ana Giménez-Arnau

  4. Independent Consultant Dermatologist, London, UK

    David Orton

  5. Department of Dermatology, Singleton Hospital, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University NHS Trust, Swansea, UK

    Barry Statham

Authors
  1. Wolfgang Uter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Axel Schnuch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ana Giménez-Arnau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David Orton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Barry Statham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolfgang Uter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Amtssygehuset Gentofte Dept. Dermatology, Hellerup, Denmark

    Jeanne Duus Johansen

  2. Federal Institute for Vaccines & Biomed, Paul Ehrlich Institut Federal Institute for Vaccines & Biomed, Langen, Bayern, Germany

    Vera Mahler

  3. Institut le Bel Labo. Dermatochimie, Strasbourg CX, France

    Jean-Pierre Lepoittevin

  4. Hautklinik, Städtische Kliniken Dortmund Klinikzentrum Mitte, Dortmund, Germany

    Peter J. Frosch

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Uter, W., Schnuch, A., Giménez-Arnau, A., Orton, D., Statham, B. (2019). Databases and Networks: The Benefit for Research and Quality Assurance in Patch Testing. In: Johansen, J., Mahler, V., Lepoittevin, JP., Frosch, P. (eds) Contact Dermatitis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72451-5_54-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72451-5_54-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72451-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72451-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference MedicineReference Module Medicine

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation