| Title |
Photocontact Dermatitis and Its Clinical Mimics: an Overview for the Allergist
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12016-018-8696-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Margaret Snyder, Jake E. Turrentine, Ponciano D. Cruz |
| Abstract |
Photo-contact dermatitis (PCD) describes the adverse cutaneous reaction that occurs in some patients as a result of simultaneous exposure to a contactant and to light. PCD can be subdivided into photo-allergic and photo-irritant dermatitis depending on whether the contactant respectively invokes an allergic or irritant reaction. Photo-irritant reactions are commonly caused by plants, psoralens, and medications taken internally, whereas photo-allergic reactions are commonly caused by sunscreens and topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications. The work-up of photo-contact dermatitis includes a thorough history and physical exam augmented by patch and/or photopatch testing, as the cornerstone of treatment for PCD is identification and avoidance of the irritating or allergenic chemical. Photo-contact dermatitis has the potential to significantly impact quality of life, so an informed approach to diagnosis and management is critical. Clinical mimics of PCD include polymorphic light eruption, solar urticaria, actinic prurigo, hydroa vacciniforme, cutaneous porphyrias, and systemic disorders with photosensitivity such as lupus and dermatomyositis. Herein, we review the clinical presentation, differential diagnosis (including the clinical mimics mentioned above), pathogenic mechanisms, diagnostic testing, and therapeutic considerations for PCD. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Romania | 6 | 86% |
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 43% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 71 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 8% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 31 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 39% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 30 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 August 2021.
All research outputs
#2,540,261
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology
#89
of 690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,502
of 332,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology
#3
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 690 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.