Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Patch testing with methyldibromo glutaronitrile, a multicentre study within the EECDRG.

B Gruvberger1, K E Andersen, F M Brandão

  • 1Department of Occupational and Environmental Dermatology, Malmö University Hospital, S-205 02 Malmö, Sweden. birgitta.gruvberger@drm.mas.lu.se

Contact Dermatitis
|February 11, 2005
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Is It Time to Retire Aldosterone Suppression Testing?

American journal of hypertension·2025
Same author

[Does ECT raise the risk of a recurrent stroke?]

Tijdschrift voor psychiatrie·2023
Same author

Early Dalmatian farmers specialized in sheep husbandry.

Scientific reports·2023
Same author

Time for a change.

The British journal of dermatology·2021
Same author

Position statement: The need for EU legislation to require disclosure and labelling of the composition of medical devices.

Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV·2021
Same author

The presence of sulfites in 'natural rubber latex' and 'synthetic' rubber gloves: an experimental pilot study.

The British journal of dermatology·2019
Same journal

From Music to Eczema: Dermatitis Caused by Para-Phenylenediamine in a Violinist.

Contact dermatitis·2026
Same journal

Reply to: Acrylate Copolymers/Crosspolymers in Sunscreens: Minimally Allergenic, Without Evidence of Need for Avoidance by (Meth)acrylate-Sensitized Individuals.

Contact dermatitis·2026
Same journal

Contact Allergy and Allergic Contact Dermatitis From Propylene Glycol and Related Glycols: Cosmetic Skin Sensitisers After All?

Contact dermatitis·2026
Same journal

Acrylate Copolymers/Crosspolymers in Sunscreens: Minimally Allergenic, Without Evidence of Need for Avoidance by (Meth)Acrylate-Sensitized Individuals.

Contact dermatitis·2026
Same journal

AI-Assisted Automated Two-Stage Patch Test Interpretation System Using Vision Transformer.

Contact dermatitis·2026
Same journal

Use of Tralokinumab in a Hairdresser With Severe Chronic Hand Eczema and Occupational Allergic Contact Dermatitis.

Contact dermatitis·2026
See all related articles

Determining the optimal patch test concentration for methyldibromo glutaronitrile (MDBGN) is crucial for diagnosing allergic contact dermatitis. This study analyzed various MDBGN concentrations to identify the most effective and reliable diagnostic preparation.

Area of Science:

  • Dermatology
  • Allergology
  • Toxicology

Background:

  • Methyldibromo glutaronitrile (MDBGN) is a known contact allergen causing allergic contact dermatitis.
  • Previous studies lack consensus on the optimal MDBGN concentration for patch testing.
  • Accurate diagnosis of MDBGN allergy is essential for patient management.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To determine the optimal patch test concentration for methyldibromo glutaronitrile (MDBGN).
  • To evaluate the relationship between MDBGN concentration and allergic/irritant reaction rates.
  • To provide evidence-based recommendations for MDBGN patch testing.

Main Methods:

  • A multicenter study involving 2661 patients across 9 European countries.
  • Petrolatum preparations of MDBGN at 1.0%, 0.5%, 0.3%, and 0.1% were used in standard patch test series.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Analysis of contact allergy rates, weak allergic reactions, and irritant reactions at different concentrations.

    • Main Results:

    • Contact allergy rates ranged from 4.4% to 1.1% with decreasing MDBGN concentrations.
    • Doubtful reactions, potentially indicating weak allergies, varied significantly with concentration (8.2% to 0.5%).
    • Purely irritant reactions were observed primarily at the highest MDBGN concentration (1.0%).

    Conclusions:

    • Patch test concentration significantly influences MDBGN allergy and reaction rates.
    • Optimal MDBGN concentration balances diagnostic sensitivity with minimizing irritant reactions.
    • Further consideration of individual diagnostic needs and open application test results is recommended for final concentration selection.