SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Nielsen G D, Rohold A E, Andersen K E. Nickel contact sensitivity in the guinea pig. An efficient open application test method. Acta Derm Venereol 1992: 72: 4548.
  • 2
    Nielsen M, Jørgensen J. Persistence of contact sensitivity to ethylenediamine. Contact Dermatitis 1987: 16: 275276.
  • 3
    Menne T et al. Contact sensitization to 5-chloro-2-methylo-4-isotlization-3-one and 2-methyl-4-isothiaolin-3-one (MCI/MI). A European multicentre study. Contact Dermatitis 1991: 24: 334341.
  • 4
    OECD. Organization for Economic Cooperation and development Skin Sensitization 1993: Guideline 406.
  • 5
    Zissu D, Cavelier C, De Ceaurriz J. Experimental sensitization of guinea-pigs to nickel and patch testing with metal samples. Food Chem Toxicol 1987: 25: 8385.
  • 6
    Rohold A E, Halkier Sørensen L, Andersen K E, Thestrup Pedersen K. Nickel patch test reactivity and the menstrual cycle. Acta Derm Venereol 1994: 74: 383385.
  • 7
    Von Blomberg M, Boerrigter G H, Scheper R J. Interference of simultaneous skin tests in delayed hypersensitivity. Immunology 1978: 35: 361367.
  • 8
    Nethercott J R, Lawrence M. The effect of the guinea pig maximization protocol on the irritant response to dendorized kerosene-the excited skin syndrome. Contact Dermatitis 1983: 9: 434443.
  • 9
    Maibach H I et al. Quantification of the excited skin syndrome (the “angry back”. Retesting one patch at a time.
  • 10
    Bruynzeel D P, Van Ketel W G. Von Blomberg van der Flier M, Scheper R J, Angry back or the excited skin syndrome. A prospective study. J Am Acad Dermatol 1983: 8: 392397.
  • 11
    Hjorth N. Diagnostic patch testing. In: MarzuliiF N, MaibachH I, (eds): Dermatoxicology, New York : Hemisphere Publishing 1991: 441451.
  • 12
    Kligman A M, Basketter D A. A critical commentary and updating of the guinea pig maximization test. Contact Dermatitis 1995: 32: 129134.
  • 13
    Bruynzeel D P, Van Ketel W G, Scheper R J. Von Blomberg van der Flier B M, Delayed time course of irritation by sodium lauryl sulfate: observations on threshold reactions. contact dermatitis 1982: 8: 236239.
  • 14
    Malten K E, den Arend J, Wiggers R E. Delayed irritation: hexanediol diacrylate and butanediol diacrylate. Contact Dermatitis 1979: 5: 178184.
  • 15
    Willis C M, Young E, Brandon D R, Wilkinson J D. Immunopathological and ultrastructural findings in human allergic and irritant contact dermatitis. Br J Dermatol 1986: 115: 30516.
  • 16
    Avnstorp C, Ralfkiaer E, Jorgensen J, Wantzin G L. Sequential immunophenotypic study of Iymophoid infiltrate in allergic and irritant reactions. Contct Dermatitis 1987: 16: 239245.
  • 17
    Brasch J, et al. Reproducibility of patch tests. A multi-center study of synchronous left-versus right-sided patch tests by the German Contact Dermatitis Research Group. J Am Acad Dermatol 1994: 31: 584591.
  • 18
    Magnusson B, Kligman A. Allergic contact dermatitis in the guinea pig: Identification of contact allergens. Illinois : Charles C Thomas, 1970: 102123.
  • 19
    Van der Walle H B, Waegemaekers T, Bensink T. Sensitizing potential of 12 di(meth) acrylates in the guinea Pig. Contact Dermatitis 1983: 9: 1020.
  • 20
    Andersen K E, Vølund A, Frankild S. The guinea pig maximization test-with a multiple dose design. Acta Dermato-venereologica 1996: 75: 463469.
  • 21
    Andersen K E, Hamann K. Is Cytox 3522 (10% methylenebis-thiocyanate) a human skin sensitizer Contact Dermatitis 1983: 9: 186189.
  • 22
    Scheper R J, Von Blomberg B M E. Cellular mechanisms in allergic contact dermatitis. In RycroftR J G, MennéT, FroschP J, (eds): Textbook of contct dermatitis. New york , Berlin . Heidelberg : Springer-Verlag, 1995: 1124.
  • 23
    Friedmann P S. The immunology of allergic contact dermatitis: the DNCB story. Adv Dermatol 1990: 5: 175195.
  • 24
    Maurer T, Hess R. The maximization test for skin sensitization potential-updating the standard protocol and validation of a modified protocol. Food Chem Toxicol 1989: 27: 807811.
  • 25
    Van der Walle H B, Klecak G, Geleick H, Bensink T. Sensitizing potential of 14 mono (meth) acrylates in ihe guinea pig. Contact Dermatitis 1982: 8: 223235.
  • 26
    Bjorkner B, Niklasson B, Persson K. The sensitizing potential of di-(meth)acrylates based on bisphenol A or epoxy resin in the guinea pig. Contact Dermatitis 1984: 10: 286304.
  • 27
    Robinson M K, Nusair T L, Fletcher E R, Ritz H L. A review of the Buehler guinea pig skin sensitizalion test and its use in a risk assessment process for human skin sensitization. Toxicology 1990: 61: 91107.
  • 28
    Shillaker R O, Bell G. M, Hodgson J T, Padgham M D. Guinea pig maximization test for skin sensitization the use of fewer test animals. Arch Toxicol 1989: 63: 283288.
  • 29
    Marzulli F N, Maibach H I. Further studies of effect of vehicles and elicitation concentration in experimental contact sensitization testing in humans. Contact Dermatitis 1980: 6: 131133.
  • 30
    Buehler E V. Nonspecific Hypersensitivity: false-positive responses with the use of Freund's complete adjuvant. Contact Dermatitis 1996: 34: 111114.
  • 31
    Benezra C, Muibach H. True cross-sensitization, false cross-sensitization and otherwise. Contact Dermatitis 1984: 11: 6569.
  • 32
    Bruze M, Fregert S, Gruvberger B, Persson K. Contact allergy to the active ingredients of Kathon CG in the guinea pig. Acta Dermatol-venereologica 1987: 67: 315320.
  • 33
    Guin J D. Contact sensitivity to topical corticosteroids. J Am Acad Dermatol 1984: 10: 773782.
  • 34
    Picman A K. Picman J, Towers G H. Cross-reactivity between sesquiterpene lactones related to parthenin in parthenin-sensitized guinea pigs. Contact Dermatitis 1982: 8: 294301.
  • 35
    Stephens T. J, Drake K D, Drotman R B. Experimental delayed contact sensitization to diazolidinyl urea (Germall II) in guinea pigs. Contact Dermatitis 1987: 16: 164168.
  • 36
    Bruze M, Gruvherger B, Persson K. Contact allergy to a contaminant in Kathon CG in the guinea pig. Derm Beruf Umwelt 1987: 35: 165168.
  • 37
    Ritz H L, Buehler E V. Planning, conduct, and interpretation of guinea pig sensitization patch test. In: Current concept in cutaneos toxicity San Diego : Academic Press.
  • 38
    Wahlberg J E, Boman A. Guinea Pig Maximization Test. In AndersenK E, MaibachH I, (eds): Contact allergy, Predictive tests in guinea pigs. Basel : Karger. 1985: 59106.
  • 39
    Bjorkner B. Sensitization capacity of acrylated prepolymers in ultraviolet curing inks tested in the guinea pig. Acta Derm Venereol Stockh 1981: 61: 710.
  • 40
    Basketter D A. Guinea pig predictive tests for contact hypersensitivity, In: DeanJ H, LusterM I, MunsonA E, KimberI, (eds): Immunotoxicology and immunopharmacology New York : Raven Press. 1994: 693702.
  • 41
    Andersen K E, Bruze M, Karlberg A T, Wahlberg J E, Vølund Aa. How to do sensitization tests in guinea pigs [Letter], Contact Dermatitis 1994: 31: 278279.
  • 42
    Bjorkner B, Niklasson B. Influence on the vehicle on elicitation of contact allergic reactions to acrylic compounds in the guinea. Contact Dermatitis 1984: 11: 268278.
  • 43
    Andersen K E, Hamann K. How sensitizing is chlorocresol? Allergy tests in guinea pigs versus the clinical experience. Contact Dermatitis 1984: 11: 1120.
  • 44
    Andersen K. E. Sensitivity and subsequent “doen regulation” of sensitivity induced by chlorocresol in guinea pigs. Arch Dermatol Res 1985: 277: 8487.
  • 45
    Von Blomberg B M E, Bruynzeel D P, Scheper R J. Advances in mechanisms of allergic contact dermatitis: in vitro and in vivo research. In: Marzulli, F N, MaibachH I, (eds): Dermatotoxicology, 4th edition. New York : Hemisphere Publisher. 1991: 255362.