Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’s reply
Book Review
Case Report
Case Series
Commentary
Conference Report
Editorial
Image
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Media and News
Obituary
Original Article
Patient’s Corner – Random Musing
Pharmacology and Therapy
Resident’s Corner
Review Article
Symposium
Symposium - Pediatric Eczema
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’s reply
Book Review
Case Report
Case Series
Commentary
Conference Report
Editorial
Image
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Media and News
Obituary
Original Article
Patient’s Corner – Random Musing
Pharmacology and Therapy
Resident’s Corner
Review Article
Symposium
Symposium - Pediatric Eczema
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Author’s reply
Book Review
Case Report
Case Series
Commentary
Conference Report
Editorial
Image
Letter to Editor
Letter to the Editor
Media and News
Obituary
Original Article
Patient’s Corner – Random Musing
Pharmacology and Therapy
Resident’s Corner
Review Article
Symposium
Symposium - Pediatric Eczema
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Symposium - Pediatric Eczema
4 (
2
); 135-142
doi:
10.25259/IJSA_34_2025

Contact dermatitis in children

Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy, GCS Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.

*Corresponding author: Harshita Ravindra Vyas, Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy, GCS Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. dr.harshitavyas@gmail.com

Licence
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

How to cite this article: Padhiyar JK, Vyas HR, Patel NH. Contact dermatitis in children. Indian J Skin Allergy. 2025;4:135-42. doi: 10.25259/IJSA_34_2025

Abstract

Contact dermatitis is a skin condition characterized by inflammation and irritation resulting from exposure to environmental allergens or irritants. The skin’s barrier function plays a crucial role in protecting against external agents, and disruption of this barrier can lead to the development of contact dermatitis. Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) are the two primary subtypes, with distinct underlying mechanisms. ACD involves an immune-mediated response to specific allergens, while ICD results from direct damage to the skin. Although previously thought to be less common, contact dermatitis is increasingly being recognized in the pediatric age group. ICD is more common in younger children, while the occurrence of ACD is known to increase with age. Irritants and allergens may differ in the pediatric age group, and newly emerging culprits are being identified every year. This is because of various factors such as urbanization, differences in the variety of toys over the years, the growing number of options available for personal care products, associated diseases like atopic dermatitis, and differences between adult and children’s skin. Even the labeled hypoallergenic products have been found to have a variety of new allergens. It is important to update knowledge regarding various culprits as well as to read labels and test products used by patients, apart from various allergens included in the pediatric patch test series. This highlights the need for ongoing research and updated guidelines. Clinical diagnosis relies on a thorough medical history, physical examination, and patch testing to identify the culprit allergens. Patch testing remains the gold standard for diagnosing ACD, enabling targeted avoidance and treatment. Difficulties of performing patch tests and their interpretation in children are well known. It is also important to establish the relevance of a positive test during a patch test. Management strategies focus on allergen avoidance, skin protection, and topical or systemic therapies to alleviate symptoms and prevent recurrence. Topical corticosteroids and immunomodulators are commonly used treatments, while systemic immunosuppressants may be required for severe cases. This comprehensive review provides an overview of the current understanding of contact dermatitis, its diagnosis, and management. By synthesizing existing knowledge and highlighting recent advances, this article aims to inform healthcare professionals and researchers about the complexities of contact dermatitis and the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to its prevention and treatment.

Keywords

Contact allergic dermatitis
Contact irritant dermatitis
Pediatric patients
Patch test in children

INTRODUCTION

Contact dermatitis is further classified into two categories – irritant contact dermatitis (ICD) and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD). There has been a steady increase in cases of ACD in the last few years, which is attributed to either an actual increase in cases or improved diagnostic facilities and availability of various tests. It has also been said that increased urbanization, cosmetic use, topical medications, and several other factors, are responsible for the increased number of cases. Various studies have reported prevalence between 10% and 70% for ACD in children across the world. In India, very few studies have been conducted, and positive reactions reported in 23% to 47% of cases.[1,2] Girls are at higher risk for ACD, and positive reactions are more common in children above the age of 10 years.[3] There have been very limited studies exploring ICD in children worldwide; hence, the exact prevalence is not known.

Children acquire skin thickness and trophism at puberty.[4] Higher absorption of contact substance occurs in children because of thin skin, higher body surface area, and occlusion due to swaddles and blankets. Because of the immaturity of cell-mediated immunity in the initial 2 years of life, ICD is more common during this phase; however, reports of ACD in the infantile phase are also there.[4] In the Indian context, because of childhood labor work, ACD can result as a part of occupational hazards.

Direct insult to the stratum corneum, which causes an imbalance of pH or barrier lipids, results in ICD. ACD occurs in a biphasic manner – sensitization phase in which allergens evoke antigen-specific T cells in the lymph node, followed by the elicitation phase in which re-exposure to allergens results in an inflammatory response by sensitized T cells migrating to the epidermis.[3] With a better understanding of pathogenesis, it is now known that ACD is a result of a combination of multiple pathways, such as Th1, Th2, Th17, and Th22.[5,6] The type of immune response differs according to various allergens.

IRRITANT DERMATITIS IN CHILDREN

Exposure to an irritant material in the same concentration as the first exposure can lead to subsequent episodes. The classic and most common example of ICD in the pediatric age group is diaper dermatitis [Figure 1]. Various factors such as wetness, maceration, prolonged exposure to organic liquids, bacterial and fungal overgrowth due to maceration, fragrances and preservatives used in diapers, and frequent aggressive cleaning contribute to the development of ICD. Various dyes, glues, or rubber (Lucky Luke dermatitis)[7] may also act as irritants. Clinically, it is characterized by a rash that affects convexities and classically spares the folds. Prevention by frequent change of nappies, zinc oxide creams, and avoiding various cleansers is recommended, while treatment can be in the form of non-fluoridated steroids if needed, along with water-in-oil emulsions can be used.

In the Indian scenario, ICD to massage oils can also be seen, particularly to mustard oil[8] and other over-the-counter products used for massage. Cultural use of kajal in the Indian setup goes a long way back in history. ICD to the same has rarely been reported.[9] Other common forms of ICD include lip-licking dermatitis, over-aggressive use of cosmetics, etc. Clinically, ICD is characterized by “decrescendo phenomenon,” meaning symptoms and signs that are initially acute and gradually decrease with the removal of irritants.[10,11] However, a form of delayed ICD has been reported, and so, it may become difficult to differentiate from ACD.[12] The usual symptoms for ICD are burning, stinging, soreness, and sensitivity to touch and water.[13,14] Other symptoms can vary according to the site, pattern of exposure, duration of the lesions, type of irritants, cumulative exposure, friction, trauma, etc. Acute ICD due to a severe single exposure presents as well-defined areas of erythema, papulation, edema, and blistering. Chronic ICD, which is caused by repeated exposure to a mild irritant, may present as localized lichenification with scaling.

Diagnosis of ICD is based on history and clinical correlation in the setting of a negative patch test if deemed necessary. There are no diagnostic tests, and hence, it is a diagnosis of exclusion. The perineal area is a common site of involvement in ICD[11] in children. Various barrier creams can be used for the prevention of ICD, especially zinc oxide based in the pediatric age group. Gloves and other personal protective equipment[15] can be used according to requirements in older children. Using soap-free cleansers is also a preventive strategy. Cool compresses and strontium salts can be used topically to improve the symptoms of ICD. Moisturizers can be added to a chronic dry ICD. Antihistamines and corticosteroids can be added according to the symptoms, though their role remains controversial. Other immunomodulators, phototherapy, dupilumab, etc., have been used occasionally.[11] Overall prognosis is good except if there is an associated history of atopic dermatitis (AD), severe form of ICD, delayed diagnosis, and females.[16]

ALLERGIC CONTACT DERMATITIS IN CHILDREN

Once thought to be less prevalent in pediatric age groups, worldwide and Indian data in the last few years are emerging that ACD is being increasingly recognized in children. The prevalence and presentation vary geographically, and more Indian data on the same are needed. As exogenous factors are responsible for ACD, we need to individualize the approach for every patient.

History points

Targeted history should be guided by the patient’s age group, lifestyle, clinical presentation, such as the area involved, and duration of lesions. Pertinent questions regarding treatment history, personal hygiene products, clothes, shoes, socks, sleep mats, objects in their rooms, etc., should be asked.[3] Exacerbating and triggering factors if noticed by parents as well as if the lesions are better during school time or during home time can give us clues. Exposures from pets, peers, caregivers, etc., are also important and should be explored during history-taking. Hence, it is essential that we tailor our questions to have a full understanding of a child’s daily activities. The following are some key points that can guide us in history.

Irritant contact dermatitis in the diaper area in a child with history of diarrhea.
Figure 1:
Irritant contact dermatitis in the diaper area in a child with history of diarrhea.

  • Infants and toddlers – diapers [Figure 2], wipes, baby powder, creams, massage oils [Figure 3], toilet training [Figure 4], new clothes, and use of products by their caregivers

  • School-aged children – toys and crafts, sports, crayons, slimes, instruments played by children, and electronic use

  • Adolescents – hair dye, jewelry, cosmetics, henna, sports, household chores, and electronic use.

Clinical presentation

  • Duration of exposures

  • Sites of involvement: Distribution may be patchy or generalized; the most common sites of involvement are the face and extremities. Special attention to the diaper area is to be given, as ACD is more common in this area in younger children. Apart from that, hand dermatitis, feet dermatitis, eyelid dermatitis, lips and peri-oral dermatitis, anogenital dermatitis, earlobe dermatitis, neck dermatitis, etc., can be a presentation of ACD. The term “ectopic dermatitis” is used when varnish in nail paint is responsible for ACD of other parts, like eyelids.[17]

  • Clinical characteristics of lesions: Acute lesions can present with pruritic, erythematous, and edematous papules/plaques/vesiculobullous lesions. Chronic lesions present with eczematization, lichenification, fissures, and hyperpigmentation. “Holster sign,”[7,18] referring to the contact allergy to rubber in undergarments affecting the waistline and proximal thighs, has been described with disposable napkins.

Contact dermatitis due to diaper wearing involving convexities of the inguinal area and sparing the folds.
Figure 2:
Contact dermatitis due to diaper wearing involving convexities of the inguinal area and sparing the folds.
Diffuse erythema with scaling over the trunk in an infant post-massage with mustard oil.
Figure 3:
Diffuse erythema with scaling over the trunk in an infant post-massage with mustard oil.

Contact dermatitis in patients with AD

Because of the barrier defects in AD, the skin is more sensitive to ICD due to external insults in comparison to ACD. In Indian studies,[1,2] there has been no statistical difference in positive patch tests between two groups – patients with atopy and patients without atopy. However, it has been suggested that a lack of filaggrin expression allows haptens to come in contact with the antigen-presenting cells of the epidermis easily. Furthermore, AD and ACD are now considered to have shared Th1, Th2, and Th17 pathways.[19] A recent study[20] has found that patients with atopy had more than one positive patch test, which was statistically significant in comparison to the control group without atopy. They also reported that they had more generalized distribution of lesions and positive patch test to bacitracin (found in topical antibiotics), carba mix (found in rubber products such as pacifiers, elastic bandages, balloons, toys, sport equipment, and sponges), and cocamidopropyl betaine (used for its tear free properties in shampoos) were significantly increased in patients with AD. Topical medications used in AD induce sensitization and may be responsible for ACD. Topical antibiotics-induced sensitization may result in cross-sensitization to oral antibiotics and must be kept in mind. Topical antivirals, antifungal, and other agents like corticosteroids[21] may also be sensitizing. Even the labeled hypoallergenic products may result in sensitization and ACD due to newly identified allergens or preservatives. Whenever the dermatitis worsens with treatment and involves the flexures in the early childhood period, a patch test should be done to rule out ACD. AD can mask ACD; hence, a high index of suspicion is required.

DIAGNOSTIC TEST IN PEDIATRIC AGE GROUP

Patch test

  • When to test:[3] A high index of suspicion is required. The following are some points that might help practitioners decide when to go for a patch test. Many studies have found that more than 50% of patients suspected to have ACD have positive patch test results.[22,23]

    1. Persistent or recurrent dermatitis: Patch test when dermatitis persists or worsens despite standard therapy for more than 2 months or recurs despite treatment

    2. Unclear cause: Use patch testing to identify the allergen when the cause of dermatitis is unknown

    3. Suspected ACD: Patch test when ACD is suspected based on history (history of hobbies, recreational activities, occupation, personal care products, topical therapies, family history of allergies, and AD) and physical examination like atypical morphology, unusual site involvement, or distribution of lesions (head and neck, hands and feet, anogenital area), etc.

    4. Late onset AD/eczema: Onset in adolescence or adulthood

    5. Occupational exposure: Consider patch testing in children with occupational exposure (e.g., hairdressing and healthcare)

    6. Exposure to known allergens: Patch test when exposure to known allergens is suspected (e.g., nickel and fragrances)

    7. Treatment-resistant cases: Use patch testing in cases resistant to standard treatments

    8. Before using potentially allergenic products: Consider patch testing before using products with known allergens.

  • Where to test: Limited space in case of children, especially in <6 years of age, is one of the problems that is faced practically. To overcome this, either allergens can be tested serially, or areas such as the thighs or abdomen can be used. Smaller pediatric-specific patch series can be used if available.

  • Which kit/allergens to be included: Various pediatric baseline panels are available, like the Australian one with 30 allergens,[24] the American with 38 allergens, and the European with 9 allergens and 12 supplemental allergens.[25] There are specific series for diaper dermatitis, metal implants, and sunscreen ingredients for the pediatric population available. It has been observed that more than 20% children have positive patch tests to various allergens outside of the standard panel.[26] However, in India, no specific patch test kits for children are available. Most common and newly emerging allergens with their sources are elaborated in Tables 1[3,27,28] and 2 [3] respectively. If not included in the standard series, these allergens can be tested by repeated open application tests. Nickel remains a common allergen. Atopy patch tests can be considered if the history is suggestive.[29]

  • Tapes to be used to fix the allergens: Should be hypoallergenic

  • Interpretation.

Table 1: Common allergens in pediatric allergic contact dermatitis.
Allergen Common sources
Nickel sulfate Jewelry, belt, buckles, electronics, zippers, coins, toys
Cobalt dichloride Jewelry, pigmented cosmetics, dental casting alloys, crayons, and paints
Fragrance mix I and II Personal hygiene products such as soaps, shampoos, lotions, perfumes, and cosmetics
Preservatives
(e.g., formaldehyde and releasers like quaternium 15, diazolidinyl urea, etc., methylisothiazolinone/methylchloroisothiazolinone)
Baby wipes, shampoos, conditioners, lotions, sunscreens, fabric softeners, nail polish, paints and glues, homemade slime, adhesives, sporting equipment
Neomycin sulfate, bacitracin Topical antibiotic creams
Balsam of Peru Fragrance, flavoring agents, toothpaste, and chewing gum
Formaldehyde and releasers Baby lotions, shampoos, laundry detergents
Lanolin (wool alcohols), propylene glycol, cocamidopropyl betaine), glucosides Moisturizers, lip balms, diaper creams, packaged food, cosmetics, cleaning products, and glucosides are widely used in hypoallergenic products or natural products
Rubber accelerators
(e.g., thiuram mix)
Rubber gloves, balloons, sports gear, shin guards
p-Phenylenediamine Black henna (important in Indian context) tattoos, hair dyes
Toilet seat dermatitis.
Figure 4:
Toilet seat dermatitis.
Table 2: Emerging allergens in pediatric allergic contact dermatitis.
Allergen Common sources
Isothiazolinones (e.g., MI, MCI)
(ACDS allergen of the year 2013)
Preservatives in baby wipes, shampoos, lotions, and “slime” toys
Hydroperoxides of linalool and limonene Oxidized fragrance components in personal care products such as shampoos and moisturizers, not included in fragrance mix 1 and 2
Acetophenone azine
(ACDS allergen of the year 2021)
Shin guards and shoes, not included in the traditional patch test series
Acrylates
(isobornyl acrylate – IBOA)
(ACDS allergen of the year 2020)
Adhesives in glucose monitors, insulin pumps, dental materials, and some toys
Chlorhexidine Antiseptics in medical products, mouthwashes, and disinfectants
Colophonium (Rosin) Adhesives in tapes, musical instruments, and sports equipment
Fragrance mix components Fragrances in cosmetics, lotions, and personal care products
Propylene glycol Moisturizers, topical corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, oral antihistamines
Cocamidopropyl betaine Personal care products labelled “natural” or “organic,” e.g., shampoo, conditioner, body wash, toothpaste, hypoallergenic products
Glucosides Rinse off or leave on products, hypoallergenic products

MI: Methylisothiazolinone, MCI: Methylchloroisothiazolinone, ACDS: American Contact Dermatitis Society

Table 3: Patch test interpretation.
Reaction grade Description Interpretation
− (Negative) No reaction No allergy detected
?+ (Doubtful) Mild reaction (erythema only) Possible irritant reaction or weak allergy
+ (Weak Positive) Weak reaction (erythema, infiltration) Possible allergy
++ (Strong Positive) Strong reaction (erythema, infiltration, papules) Likely allergy
+++ (Extreme Positive) Severe reaction (erythema, infiltration, papules, vesicles) Definite allergy
Irritant reaction Reaction with characteristics of irritation, variable morphology (e.g., burning, itching) No allergy detected, likely irritant reaction
Table 4: Examples of cross reactions between allergens.
Sensitizing allergen Cross-reacting allergens
Nickel Chromium, palladium, cobalt
p-phenylenediamine (PPD) Benzocaine, procaine, sulfonamides, mesalazine, diaminodiphenylmethane, para-aminobenzoic acid (PABA), some azo dyes
Balsam of Peru (Myroxylon pereirae) Beeswax, benzoin, benzyl salicylate, colophony, coumarin, diethylstilbestrol, resorcinol, propolis
Formaldehyde Quaternium-15, imidazolidinyl urea, DMDM hydantoin
Hydrocortisone butyrate, hydrocortisone valerate (group D2) Group A: cortisone, hydrocortisone acetate, methylprednisolone acetate, prednisolone
Group B: budesonide, desonide, fluocinolone acetonide, triamcinolone acetonide

DMSM: 1,3-Dimethylol-5,5-dimethyl

Based on the European Society of Contact Dermatitis,[30] North American Contact Dermatitis Group,[31] and International Contact Dermatitis Research Group,[32] patch test interpretation is summarized in Table 3. False-negative reactions can occur due to a lower concentration of the allergens or treatment with immunosuppressive drugs, phototherapy, or sun exposure. Interpretations of patch test optimally should be done at 48 hours;[29] however, earlier reading at 24 hours may be required in younger age and delayed reading at 1–3 weeks for delayed reactions (neomycin, metals, corticosteroids, and preservatives).[33]

  • Relevance[34]

Patch test results should be interpreted in the context of the patient’s history and clinical presentation. A positive reaction does not always indicate clinical relevance. Review of product ingredients and current as well as past exposure also needs to be taken into consideration. There are three categories of relevance as follows:

  1. Definite: Patch test or use test with offending product is positive.

  2. Probable: Patch test is positive, offending allergen is present in the products to which the patient is exposed, and clinical presentations align with the exposure.

  3. Possible: Patch test is positive, and the patient might have been in contact with the allergen in the exposed material.

  • Practical points – A photo patch test may be done if indicated. If the back is involved with dermatitis, it can be cleared for patch testing with soaks and topical steroids. Repeated open application tests with suspected products can be performed on a 2.5 cm area on the non-sun-exposed part of the forearm for 2 weeks. Left-on products are to be left on, while rinse-off products are to be washed off to reflect daily use.

  • Test while on treatment: Topical steroids should be stopped before 7 days of the patch test.[35] Oral agents should be tapered and discontinued before patch testing, and the duration to test can be calculated according to their half-life. Dupilumab is not contraindicated and can be continued.[36] However, few reports of recall of ACD at the patch test site with dupilumab are there, and hence, more data are needed to derive its impact.[37]

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS

ICD is the most common close differential diagnosis of ACD, and clues like limited to the area of exposure and questions regarding common irritants can guide the final diagnosis. Other differential diagnosis such as eczema, bacterial and fungal infections, scabies, insect bite hypersensitivity, psoriasis, seborrheic dermatitis, etc., needs to be considered according to the site of involvement, associated symptoms, and age of patients.

QUALITY OF LIFE

Chronic recurrent ACD may be burdensome for the patient as well as for the family. Avoiding allergens may be challenging in childhood without affecting their daily lives. Persistent itching may impair their sleep and day-to-day activities.

THERAPY

Avoidance of allergens as well as cross-reactants is of utmost importance.[3,38] This requires tedious task of label reading for any product in the future [Table 4]. A program called SkinSAFE is available to find safe products according to patch test results.[3] Antihistamines are needed to alleviate the symptoms. Topical agents such as cold compresses, topical corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors can be used. Oral steroids, JAK inhibitors, methotrexate, azathioprine, cyclosporine, and phototherapy may be added when ACD is not controlled with topical medications. However, long-term therapy with oral agents is not recommended.[39] For the prevention of ACD, barrier creams, gloves, gentle cleansers, and moisturizers can be considered. Dupilumab has been found effective in ACD, while results for ustekinumab have not been promising.

Pre-emptive avoidance strategies are indicated in the setting of high clinical suspicion and a negative patch test. This includes avoidance of fragrances, preservatives, antimicrobials, emollients, natural additives, surfactants, corticosteroids, and henna.

CONCLUSION

Contact dermatitis in children – particularly ACD and ICD – is increasingly recognized as a significant dermatological concern, with rising prevalence attributed to factors such as urbanization, cosmetic use, and occupational exposures. While ICD is more common in early childhood due to skin immaturity and environmental irritants, ACD is becoming more prevalent with advancing age, especially in girls. Accurate diagnosis hinges on a thorough history, clinical evaluation, and patch testing, despite its limitations in the pediatric population. Timely recognition and individualized management, including allergen avoidance, appropriate topical therapy, and parental education, are crucial. There should be nationwide and region-wise data on common allergens to guide effective management and avoidance; hence, more studies from our own country are the need of time.

Ethical approval:

Institutional Review Board approval is not required.

Declaration of patient consent:

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent.

Conflicts of interest:

There are no conflicts of interest.

Use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for manuscript preparation:

The authors confirm that there was no use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for assisting in the writing or editing of the manuscript and no images were manipulated using AI.

Financial support and sponsorship: Nil.

References

  1. , . Clinico-allergological pattern of allergic contact dermatitis among 70 Indian children. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2010;76:38-44.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , , . Patch testing in children: An experience from Kashmir. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2016;82:186-8.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. , , , . Pediatric allergic contact dermatitis. Part I: Clinical features and common contact allergens in children. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84:235-44.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , . Contact dermatitis in children. Ital J Pediatr. 2010;36:2.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. , , . What we have learned-milestones in pediatric contact dermatitis. Curr Dermatol Rep. 2022;11:1-12.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. , , , , , , et al. Molecular profiling of contact dermatitis skin identifies allergen-dependent differences in immune response. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;134:362-72.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. , , , . 'Lucky Luke' contact dermatitis due to rubber components of diapers. Contact Dermatitis. 1998;38:363-4.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. , , . Oil massage in babies: Indian perspectives. Indian J Paediatr Dermatol. 2013;14:1-3.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. , , . Irritant contact dermatitis due to “Kajal”. Indian J Pediatr. 2014;81:104.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. , , . Irritant dermatitis. In: Dermatotoxicology. Boca Raton: CRC Press; . p. :181-228.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. , . Irritant contact dermatitis-a review. Curr Dermatol Rep. 2022;11:41-51.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. , , . Delayed irritation: Hexanediol diacrylate and butanediol diacrylate. Contact Dermatitis. 1979;5:178-84.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. , , . Contact dermatitis due to irritation In: Kanerva's Occupational Dermatology. Switzerland: Springer Nature; . p. :119-37.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. , . Clinical aspects of irritant contact dermatitis. In: Contact dermatitis. Berlin: Springer; . p. :255-94.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. , , , , , , et al. Critical review of the role of PPE in the prevention of risks related to agricultural pesticide use. Saf Sci. 2020;123:104527.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. , , . Irritant contact dermatitis. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2019;56:99-109.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. , , , . Nail varnish allergy with far-reaching consequences. Br J Dermatol. 1993;128:5762.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. , , . Clinical features and differential diagnosis of Napkin dermatitis In: , , , eds. Textbook of pediatric dermatology (2nd ed). United States: Blackwell Publishing; . p. :163.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. , , , , , , et al. Der p1 and Der p2-specific T cells display a Th2, Th17, and Th2/Th17 phenotype in atopic dermatitis. J Invest Dermatol. 2015;135:2324-7.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. , , , , , , et al. Prevalence of allergic contact dermatitis in children with and without atopic dermatitis: A multicenter retrospective case-control study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2023;89:1007-4.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. , , . Contact allergens in topical corticosteroid vehicles: Analysis of product composition. Contact Dermatitis. 2017;76:254-5.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. , . Patch tests in children with suspected allergic contact dermatitis: A prospective study and review of the literature. Dermatology. 2009;218:119-25.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. , , . Contact sensitization in children: A retrospective study of 2,614 children from a single center. Pediatr Dermatol. 2016;33:399-404.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. , , , , . Allergic contact dermatitis in children and proposal for an Australian Paediatric baseline series. Australas J Dermatol. 2020;61:33-8.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. , , , , , , et al. EAACI position paper for practical patch testing in allergic contact dermatitis in children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2015;26:598-606.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. , , , , , , et al. Patch testing in children from 2005 to 2012: Results from the North American contact dermatitis group. Dermatitis. 2014;25:345-55.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. , , , , , , et al. Patch-test results of the North American contact dermatitis group 2005-2006. Dermatitis. 2009;20:149-60. Erratum in: Dermatitis 2009;20:300
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. , , , , , , et al. Pediatric contact dermatitis registry data on contact allergy in children with atopic dermatitis. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153:765-70.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. , , , . Pediatric allergic contact dermatitis. Part 2: Patch testing series, procedure, and unique scenarios. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84:247-55.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. , , , , , , et al. European society of contact dermatitis guideline for diagnostic patch testing-recommendations on best practice. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73:195-221.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. , , , , , , et al. Contact dermatitis: A practice parameter-update 2015. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2015;3(3 Suppl):S1-39.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. , , , , , , et al. Routine patch testing. II. Proposed basic series of test substances for Scandinavian countries and general remarks on testing technique. Acta Derm Venereol. 1966;46:153-8.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. , , , . New positive patch test reactions on day 7-the additional value of the day 7 patch test reading. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;81:280-7.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. , . Pediatric allergic contact dermatitis. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2021;41:393-408.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. . The effect of topically applied corticosteroid on irritant and allergic patch test reactions. Contact Dermatitis. 1996;35:331-3.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. , , , . The impact of dupilumab on patch testing and the prevalence of comorbid allergic contact dermatitis in recalcitrant atopic dermatitis: A retrospective chart review. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;82:132-8.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. , , , , . Recall dermatitis at patch test sites in an atopic dermatitis patient treated with dupilumab. Contact Dermatitis. 2019;80:69-70.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. . A review of contact dermatitis. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2021;126:32-9.
    [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. . Management of contact dermatitis. Allergo J Int. 2023;32:57-76.
    [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Show Sections