Corrigenda
para-Phenylenediamine: the profile of an important allergen. Results of the IVDK. Br J Dermatol 2008, Schnuch et al.
The authors of the above mentioned article1 regret a calculation error with regard to the epidemiological model (CE-DUR) used to estimate sensitization frequencies in the general population.
‘the number of patients with suspected CA, eligible for patch testing, is derived as 9 980 055’.
Accordingly, the last line of Table 2 has to be corrected to the following:
| Subgroup | Hair dye I | Hair dye II | Leather/textile | Occupational | Unspecified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CE-DUR 10-year prevalence in the general population (82 000 000) (%) | 0·04 | 0·07 | 0·06 | 0·11 | 0·21 |
And the text to:
‘Sensitization to PPD in a ten year period was diagnosed in 4% of patients tested. In the general population (GP) this would correspond to a 10-year prevalence of PPD CA of 0·49%, according to the CE-DUR estimation.’
The result section of the abstract has to be corrected as shown:
Results
The 4% prevalence of PPD CA in patients was extrapolated to a prevalence of 0·49% in the GP. The defined profiles were found to ‘explain’ the following %ages of PPD CA: (a) hair dyeing in clients: 22% (0·11% in the GP); (b) different occupational exposures, namely hair dyeing by hairdressers, paints- and rubber-associated exposures: 23% (0·11% in the GP); and (c) clothing/shoes: 12% (0·06% in the GP). A probable causal exposure to PPD could not be identified in about 44% of patients with PPD CA’.
