Search

Allergic contact dermatitis in the pediatric population is more common than previously recognized, with recent prevalence estimates of positive patch test reactions in the range of 14–70% of children patch tested. The aim of this study was to confirm the prevalence of clinically relevant allergic contact dermatitis in children at two referral centers and determine the most common contact allergens. We performed a retrospective case series analysis of 65 symptomatic children (35 girls and 30 boys) aged 1–18 years old who were patch tested over a 5-year period for recalcitrant dermatitis. Positive patch test reactions were noted in 54 of the 65 children (prevalence rate of 83%) to 80 different allergens. Fifty children (77%) had positive reactions which were determined to be of “definite” or “probable” current clinical relevance. We conclude that the diagnosis of allergic contact dermatitis to specific relevant allergens is common in children referred for patch testing and that contact allergy should be considered in all children with recalcitrant dermatitis. With this article, we review the literature and present a US based study regarding the clinical relevance of positive patch test reactions in children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose of Review: The following paper reviews the recent literature pertaining to allergic contact dermatitis in the pediatric population., Recent Findings: Allergic contact dermatitis may affect as many as 20% of the pediatric population. Recent studies implicate the following chemicals as the most common causes: nickel, topical antibiotics, preservative chemicals, fragrances and rubber accelerators. Several less common, but emerging, allergens have also been reported recently, including para-phenylenediamine in henna tattoos, cocamidopropyl betaine in 'no tears' shampoos and cleansers, and disperse dyes in clothing materials. Allergic contact dermatitis occurs less frequently in the first few months of life and increases in prevalence with increasing age. In the adolescent age group, females have significantly higher rates of allergic contact dermatitis on the face. This is likely explained by increased exposures to nickel in piercings and to preservative and fragrance chemicals in cosmetic products., Summary: The documented rates of allergic contact dermatitis in children are on the rise. This increased prevalence may be due to increased chemical exposures in this age group, better recognition by pediatricians and perhaps more widespread use of epicutaneous patch testing. This review outlines the basic pathophysiology, epidemiology and clinical manifestations of allergic contact dermatitis in children.

Background: Problems with statistical methods and reporting have been noted in articles published in dermatology journals. Conclusions presented in published reports may be misleading if based on inappropriate or misinterpreted statistical analysis., Objective: We sought to assess dermatology journal editors' policies and perceptions regarding statistical review of submitted manuscripts., Design: We mailed and e-mailed a questionnaire survey., Participants: A total of 43 dermatology journal editors, representing 35 dermatology journals from the United States and abroad, participated in this study., Results: In all, 32 editors (74.4%), representing 30 journals (85.7%), returned questionnaires. A total of 24 editors (75%) reported having requested statistical reviews on less than 5% of published manuscripts containing original quantitative analysis (ie, excluding reviews and case reports), whereas 3 editors (9.4%) reported having requested statistical reviews on more than 75% of such manuscripts. Most editors reported requesting statistical reviews on a case-by-case basis either after initial favorable review by subject-matter (nonstatistical) reviewers (12 editors; 37.5%) or at the same time that subject-matter review was requested (6 editors; 18.8%). A total of 4 editors (12.5%) reported requesting statistical review for all manuscripts at the same time they are sent for subject-matter review. Another 10 editors (31.3%) said their journals had no general policy on statistical reviewing, and statistical review is almost never needed. For 15 editors (46.9%), ideal statistical reviewing policy was identical to their current policy, whereas 13 (40.6%) favored a more rigorous and 3 (9.4%) a less rigorous policy., Conclusions: Dermatology journals infrequently perform statistical reviews of submitted manuscripts. Dermatology journal editors' statistical review policies range from no general policy to (most frequently) requesting reviews on a case-by-case basis to reviewing all submitted manuscripts. Many editors favor more rigorous statistical reviewing policies for their journals. Increased use of statistical reviewing may increase the reliability of conclusions published in dermatology journals.