Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Dotterud, Lars Kåre (2007)
Publisher: Co-Action Publishing
Journal: International Journal of Circumpolar Health
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: atopic dermatitis; contact dermatitis; contact sensitization; ear piercing; nickel allergy

Classified by OpenAIRE into

mesheuropmc: otorhinolaryngologic diseases
OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the prevalence of contact sensitization in a general adult population and the relationship between the history of metal dermatitis and sensitization to metal allergens. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional population study using patch tests and a questionnaire was conducted among adults in Tromso, Northern Norway. METHODS: A random sample of 830 participants aged 18-75 years were invited to participate in the patch testing and completed a 1-page self-administered questionnaire. Of the adults, 531 (64%) were actually TRUE tested (using a standardized, ready-to-apply patch test system) and completed the self-administered questionnaire about ear piercing, metal reactions, skin reactions to different allergens, atopic dermatitis, eczema, cooking equipment and diet. RESULTS: The study showed that nickel (19.2%; women 31.1% and men 5.0%), fragrance mix (3.4%) and cobalt (1.7%) were the most prevalent allergens causing contact sensitization. For all other allergens, less than 1.1% tested positive. Eighty-four (45.2%) subjects with a positive history of metal dermatitis had negative patch tests. CONCLUSIONS: Contact sensitization was found frequently in this general adult population, especially to nickel and perfumes with a predominance among females. An eczematous reaction caused by cheap earrings seemed to be the best indicator for metal sensitivity.Keywords: atopic dermatitis; contact dermatitis; contact sensitization; ear piercing; nickel allergy(Int J Circumpolar Health 2007; 66(4):328-334)
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 1. Nielsen N, Menné T. Allergic contact sensitization in an unselected Danish population. “The Glostrup Allergy study, Denmark.” Acta Derm Venereol 1992;72:456- 460.
    • 2. Magnia S, Barros MA, Ferreira jA, Mesquita-Guimarães. Atopy, nickel sensitivity, occupational, and clinical patterns in different types of hand dermatitis. j Am j c ontact Dermatitis 2003;14(2):63-68.
    • 3. Andersen F. Development of an in-vitro test method for the evaluation of the effect of anti-irritants in the treatment of irritant contact dermatitis. Forum Nord Derm Ven 2006;1(Suppl. 10):1-23.
    • 4. Schäfer T, Böhler E, Ruhdorfer S, et al. Epidemiology of contact allergy in adults. Allergy 2001;56:1192-1196.
    • 5. Stingeni L, Lapomarda V, Paolo L. Occupational hand dermatitis in hospital environments. c ontact Dermatitis 1995;33:172-176.
    • 6. Nielsen Nh , Linneberg A, Mennè T, et al. Allergic c ontact Sensitization in an adult Danish population: Two cross-sectional surveys eight years apart. (The c openhagen Allergy Study). Acta Derm Venereol 2001;81:31- 34.
    • 7. Stensland-Bugge E, Bønaa K, joakimsen O. Reproducibility of ultrasono-graphically determinal intima-media thickness is dependent on arterial wall thickness: the Tromsø Study. Stroke 1997;28:1972-1980.
    • 8. Smith-Sivertsen T. Air pollution and health in the Norwegian-Russian border area: a cross-sectional population based study of the impact of nickel and sulphur dioxide. PhD thesis (iSM, skriftserie No. 55). University of Northern Norway, Tromsø, Norway 2000.
    • 9. james WD, Rosenthal LE, Brancacclo, RR, Marks jG. American Academy of Dermatology Patch Testing Survey: use and effectiveness of this procedure. j Am Acad Dermatol 1992;26:991-994.
    • 10. Fischer T, Maibach hi . Easier patch testing with TRUE test. j Am Acad Dermatol 1989;20:447-453.
    • 11. Wahlberg jE. Patch testing. in: Rycroft RjG, Menné T, Frosch Pj, Lepoittevin j-P, editors. Textbook of c ontact Dermatitis, 3rd ed. New y ork: Springer-Verlag; 2001. p. 435-468.
    • 12. Dotterud LK, Falk ES. Metal allergy in North Norwegian schoolchildren and its relationship with ear piercing and atopy. c ontact Dermatitis 1994;31:308-313.
    • 13. h ennekens ch , Buring jE, Mayrent SL. Epidermiology in medicine. Boston, MA: Little, Brown; 1987. p. 331- 339.
    • 14. Dotterud LK, Smith-Sivertsen T. Allergic contact sensitization in the general adult population: a populationbased study from Northern Norway. c ontact Dermatitis 2007;56:10-15.
    • 15. Krob h A, Fleischer AB, D'Agostino jr. R, h averstock c L, Feldman S. Prevalence and relevance of contact dermatitis of contact dermatitis allergens: A meta-analysis of 15 years of published TRUE test data. j Am Acad Dermatol 2004;51:349-353.
    • 16. Smith-Sivertsen T, Dotterud LK, Lund E. Nickel allergy and its relationship with local nickel pollution, ear piercing and atopic dermatitis. j Am Acad Dermatol 1999;40:726-735.
    • 17. Smith-Sivertsen T, Tchachtchine V, Lund E. Environmental nickel pollution: Does it protect against nickel allergy. j Am Acad Dermatol 2002;46:460-462.
    • 18. johansen jD, Mennè T, c hristophersen j, Kaaber K, Veien N. c hanges in the pattern of sensitization to common contact allergens in Denmark between 1985- 86 and 1997-98, with a special view to the effect of preventive strategies. Br. j Dermatol 2000;142:490- 495.
    • 19. Olumide y M. c ontact dermatitis in Nigeria. c ontact Dermatitis 1985;12:241-246.
    • 20. Kanan WM. c ontact dermatitis in Kuwait. j Kwt Med Assoc 1969;3:129-144.
    • 21. h indsén M, c linical and experimental studies in nickel allergy. Acta Derm Venereol 1999;(Suppl)204:1-22.
    • 22. European parliament and council directive 94/27/Ec . Official journal of the European c ommunities Directive of 30 june 1994; No. L188:1-2 (Nickel).
    • 23. jensen c S, Lisby S, Baadsgaard O, Volund A, Menné T. Decrease in nickel sensitization in a Danish schoolgirls population with ears pierced after implementation of a nickel-exposure regulation. Br j Dermatol 2002; 146(4):636-642.
    • 24. Uter W, Ludwig A, Balda BR, et al. The prevalence of contact allergy differed between population-based data and clinic-based data. j c lin Epidemiol 2004;57(6): 627-632.
    • 25. Elberling j, Linneberg A, Mosbech h , et al. A link between skin and airways regarding sensitivity to fragrance products? Br j Dermatol 2004;151:1197-1203.
    • 26. Scheinman PL. Prevalence of fragrance allergy. Dermatology 2002;205:98-102.
    • 27. Buckley DA, Wakelin Sh , Seed PT, et al. The frequency of fragrance allergy in a patch-test population over a 17-year period. Br. j Dermatol 2000;142:279-283.
    • 28. Dickel h , Taylor jS, Evey P, Merk h F. c omparison of patch test results with a standard series among white and black racial groups. Am j c ontact Dermatitis 2001; 12(2):77-82.
    • 29. Scheinman PL. Allergic contact dermatitis: a review. Am j c ontact Dermatitis 1996;7:65-76.
    • 30. Zachariae c O, Agner T, Menné T. c hromium allergy in consecutive patients in a country where ferrous sulphate has been added to cement since 1981. c ontact Dermatitis 1996;35:83-85.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Collected from