FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2333996943> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2333996943 endingPage "407" @default.
• W2333996943 startingPage "404" @default.
• W2333996943 abstract "original articlePattern of patch test reactivity among patients with clinical diagnosis of contact dermatitis: a hospital-based study Adel Almogren, Zahid Shakoor, Mohammad Osman GadEl Rab, and Mustafa Hussein Adam Adel Almogren Immunology Unit, Department of Pathology, College of Medicine and University Hospital, King Saud University, Riyadh Search for more papers by this author , Zahid Shakoor Immunology Unit, Department of Pathology, College of Medicine and University Hospital, King Saud University, Riyadh Search for more papers by this author , Mohammad Osman GadEl Rab Immunology Unit, Department of Pathology, College of Medicine and University Hospital, King Saud University, Riyadh Search for more papers by this author , and Mustafa Hussein Adam King Khalid University Hospitals, Riyadh Search for more papers by this author Published Online:7 Jun 2012https://doi.org/10.5144/0256-4947.2012.404SectionsPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail AboutAbstractBACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Contact allergy is associated with a significant morbidity all over the world. This study was performed to investigate the pattern of sensitization by contact allergens in the local population.DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective study to investigate patch test reactivity among patients with clinical diagnosis of contact dermatitis who were referred to the allergy clinic at the King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, between April 2008 and March 2010.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of the 196 patients referred to the allergy clinic over the 2-year period, 91 (46.4%) patients reacted to one or more patch test allergens, and these patients were included in this study. The study group included 82 (91.1%) of Saudi nationality and 9 (8.9%) patients of other nationalities. The patch test was performed using the T.R.U.E TEST, containing 24 allergens/allergen mixes.RESULTS: Of the 91 cases who reacted positively to one or more allergens, 67 (73.6%) were females with a mean age of 37 (8.3 years) and 24 (26.4%) were males with a mean age of 34 (11.6 years). Thirty-three (36.2%) patients reacted to nickel sulfate, 14 (15.3%) to p-phenylenediamine, 13 (14.2%) to p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin, 13 (14.2%) to thimerosal, and 9 (9.8%) to colophony. Reactivity against the rest of the allergens was not remarkable. A significantly higher percentage of females reacted to nickel sulfate (84.8% vs 15.2% in males; P=.0001), p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin (92.3% vs 7.7%; P=.0001), and thimerosal (76.9% vs 23.1%; P=.03).CONCLUSIONS: Patch test reactivity to nickel sulfate was high. The pattern of contact allergy observed in this study indicates the need for large-scale investigations to identify local allergens responsible for contact allergy and for formulation of policies directed towards avoidance of exposure.IntroductionContact dermatitis (CD) is a common clinical condition affecting the skin. Most commonly it is caused by irritants and only a relatively small proportion is due to allergy. Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) frequently involves the hands and face.1 During the acute phase the most common symptom is itching, which may be associated with vesicle and bullae formation. Scaling and lichenification are features of chronic ACD.2 As opposed to irritant contact dermatitis (ICD), ACD is believed to be an immunological reaction and requires prior allergen sensitization.3 However, there is evidence indicating that the immune system plays a significant role in the pathogenesis of ICD as well.4 ICD is thought to be a non-antigen-specific inflammatory process mediated by haptens5 and associated with release of cytokines and recruitment of dendritic cells.6,7 Hapten-induced ICD is thought to evolve into ACD by acquisition of antigenic properties by haptens subsequent to their binding and modification of self-proteins. 8 Recently it has been suggested that ICD and ACD are closely associated, and the induction of ICD may be a prerequisite for the development of ACD.9ACD comprises about 6% to 10% of all dermatology clinic visits and is associated with significant morbidity. 10 Allergen sensitization is believed to be dependent on the degree of exposure to the allergen and exhibits strong individual variation. Genetic predisposition appears to be an important factor, as some individuals are more easily sensitized to common allergens than others. 11 In addition, regional and environmental factors may also influence the exposure patterns and could be responsible for the variations in the patterns of skin reactivity observed in different parts the world.12,13The patch test is a useful tool for the detection and identification of contact allergens, despite the fact that 10% to 15% of normal healthy individuals may react to one or more allergens.14,15 In patients with ACD, detection of the relevant agent by patch testing is crucial for instituting appropriate prevention and treatment.16 Avoidance of the relevant allergen/s has recently been shown to be associated with significant improvement in over 85% of patients with ACD.17 Over 3000 chemicals are known to cause ACD but, fortunately, only a small number of these chemicals are responsible for symptoms in the majority of cases.18 Thorough knowledge of the common allergens and a comprehensive history of the patient’s exposure to possible allergens will be valuable for selecting the test panels for patch testing. This retrospective study examines patch test reactivity to common allergens in patients with clinical suspicion of CD over a period of 2 years.PATIENTS AND METHODSA total of 196 patients with the clinical diagnosis of CD were referred to the allergy clinic at KKU Hospital for patch testing between April 2008 and March 2010. Because of the lack of access to the patient records, clinical data could not be collected.The patch test was performed using T.R.U.E. Test (Thin-layer Rapid Use Epicutaneous Test, Mekos Laboratories AS, Denmark) with a panel of 24 allergens/allergen mixes. The test panel was applied on the upper part of the patient’s back on healthy skin free of acne, scars, dermatitis, or any other skin condition that might interfere with the interpretation of the results. Patients were instructed to wear the patch for 48 hours without removing it and to avoid contact with water. Interpretation of the results was performed first after 48 hours and then again 72 to 96 hours after the application. This protocol allowed sufficient time for the allergic reactions to fully develop and for mild irritant reactions to disappear. Patients were instructed to report back to the clinic in case of delayed reactions. The interpretation of the results was performed in accordance with the recommendations of the International Contact Dermatitis Research Group (ICDRG) and the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG). Statistical analysis of the data was performed using MedCalc software version 11.5.1.0 for comparison of the proportions. P≤.05 was considered statistically significant.RESULTSOut of 196 patients suspected to have CD, 91 (46.4%) individuals tested positive to either one or more allergens; these included 24 males with a mean age of 34 (11.6) years and 67 females with a mean age of 37 (8.3) years. These 91 patients included 82 (91.1%) of Saudi nationality and 9 (8.9%) patients of other nationalities. Among the 91 patients, 56 (61.5%) reacted positively to a single allergen. A female preponderance was evident among the patients with CD, with 67 (73.6%) females compared to 24 (26.4%) males showing positive reaction to either one or more allergens in the patch test panel. Figure 1 shows the pattern of patch test reactivity among the patients with CD. Nickel sulfate was found to be the most frequently reacting allergen, with 33 (36.2%) patients showing reaction to the allergen. A positive reaction was seen with p-phenylenediamine in 14 patients (15.3%), with p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin in 13 patients (14.2%), with thimerosal in 13 patients (14.2%), and with colophony in 9 patients (9.8%). Reactivity against the rest of the panel was not remarkable. Table 1 shows the gender differences among the patients with CD where notable numbers of patients reacted to patch test allergens. The group of 33 patients reacting positively to nickel sulfate had a significantly higher proportion of females (28/33; 84.8%) than males (5/33; 15.2%) (P=.0001). Although the difference was not as marked as with nickel sulfate, a significantly higher number of females than males reacted to p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin (P=.0001) and thimerosal (P=.03).Figure 1 Pattern of allergen patch test reactivity among patients with contact dermatitis (n=91). patch test reactivityDownload FigureTable 1 Gender differences among patients with contact dermatitis in cases where notable patch test allergen reactivity was observed.AllergenNumber of patientsNumber of females (%)Number of males (%)PNickel3328 (84.8)5 (15.2).0001p-Phenylenediamine146 (42.8)8 (57.2)Not significantp-tert-Butylphenol formaldehyde resin1312 (92.3)1 (7.7).0001Thimerosal1310 (76.9)3 (23.1)0.03Colophony097 (77.7)2 (22.3)Not significantDISCUSSIONNickel sulfate was found to be the most frequently (36.2%) reacting patch test allergen in this study. Similar findings were noted in an earlier study performed among adolescents between the ages of 10 to 19 years where 56% of patients reacted to one or more patch test allergens and among them 31% were found to be allergic to nickel.19 Patch test reactivity between 13% and 17% has also been reported.20,21 The NACDG has consistently ranked nickel as the most frequently reacting allergen among positive patch test reactions. Because of the presence of nickel in a large variety of products it is very difficult to avoid contact with nickel and this is probably the main reason for the high incidence of nickel allergy.22 An increase in patch test reactivity to nickel among patients with CD has also been observed: two separate studies, one performed from 1994 to 1996 and the other from 1998 to 2000, reported nickel reactivity in 14.3% and 16.2% of patients, respectively.23 Collectively, these data indicate that nickel sulfate is not only a common contact sensitizer but that allergy to nickel is gradually increasing, probably due to the increased exposure to nickel.A significantly higher proportion of females with CD reacted to nickel in the present study. Women have already been reported to be at a higher risk of acquiring allergy to nickel (20.4% vs 5.8% in men).20 Differences in exposure have been postulated to be the cause for this disparity. Early skin contact with nickel in earrings or pins have been implicated in the increased skin reactivity to nickel among females.24 Attempts to decrease exposure to nickel in Denmark by legal restriction on earrings with high nickel content have resulted in 64% reduction in nickel allergy among young girls.25 It has also recently been reported that nickel regulation in Denmark has not only decreased nickel allergy among young females, it has also reduced the occurrence of new cases.26 Since 2001, the European Parliament and European Council have also imposed restrictions on the use of objects containing nickel that may cause skin sensitization.27 Nickel allergy appears to be a major public health problem that requires serious consideration and implementation of policies directed towards reducing skin contact with nickel.p-Phenylenediamine (PPD) is commonly used in hair dyes and in Bandrowski base, a trimer that forms quickly upon storage of PPD and is believed to be the main allergen in patients reacting to PPD.28 A sizeable proportion (15.3%) of patients with CD reacted to PPD in the present study, higher than the proportion (7%) reported in a recent study from Thailand.29 A significant increase in the skin reactivity to PPD has been observed and this alteration in PPD reactivity has been attributed to the changes in exposure patterns.30 The use of hair dyes is increasing31 and, consequently, so is the exposure to PPD, thus accounting for the substantially high prevalence of symptoms such as redness, scaling, itching, or edema following hair dye application. 32 It is therefore imperative to introduce measures to curtail exposure to this sensitizer.p-tert-Butylphenol-formaldehyde resin is an alkyl-phenol resin made from p-tert-butylphenol and formaldehyde. It is included in many adhesive formulations. Glues containing p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin are used in leather products such as shoes, watch-straps, handbags, building materials, motorcars, and electrical products.33 Positive patch test reactions to p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin were detected in 14.2% of the patients with CD in the present study, and reactivity was more frequently seen among females. This appears to be a significantly high percentage when compared to the previous reports that have documented reactivity to p-tert-butylphenol-formaldehyde resin of 2.3% in 1984, 1.7% in 1996,34 and 2.2% in 2000.35Thimerosal patch test reactivity observed in the present study was 14.2%, which was also higher than the recently reported figures of 6.4%36 in adults and 1.7% in children.37 Thimerosal has for long been used as a preservative in medical preparations and vaccines. Its use in vaccines was abandoned in the United States due to public concern.38Although the present study examined a relatively small number of patients with CD, comprised pre-dominantly of Saudi nationality, it does however reveal a pattern of sensitization by contact allergens that this study population was exposed to. High reactivity to nickel has previously been reported from Saudi Arabia in 1995,39 though the pattern of allergen reactivity was different to what has been found in the present study. Large-scale studies are needed to further investigate the local allergens responsible for CD in Saudi Arabia, which will aid implementation of appropriate measures for avoidance of exposure.ARTICLE REFERENCES:1. Zug KA, Warshaw EM, Fowler JF, Maibach HI, Belsito DL, Pratt MD, et al. Patch-test results of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group 2005–2006 . Dermatitis. 2009; 20:149-60. Google Scholar2. Mowad CM, Marks JG. Allergic contact dermatitis . In: Bolognia JL, Jorizzo JL, Rapini RP, et al.Dermatology, 2nd ed. Spain: Elsevier; 2008;209-22. Google Scholar3. Mark BJ, Slavin RG. Allergic contact dermatitis . Med Clin N Am. 2006; 90:169-85. Google Scholar4. Levin CY, Maibach HI. Irritant contact dermatitis: Is there an immunologic component? Int Immuno-pharmacol. 2002; 2:183-9. Google Scholar5. Basketter DA, Gerberick GF, Kimber I, Willis C. Contact irritation mechanisms . Toxicology of contact dermatitis. West Sussex P019 1UD, England: John Wiley and Sons; 1999;11-38. Google Scholar6. Pastore S, Mascia F, Mariotti F, Dattilo C, Girolomoni G. Chemokine networks in inflammatory skin diseases . Eur J Dermatol. 2004; 14:203-8. Google Scholar7. Saint-Mezard P, Berard F, Dubois B, Kaiserlian D, Nicolas JF. The role of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells in contact hypersensitivity and allergic contact dermatitis . Eur J Dermatol. 2004; 14:131-8. Google Scholar8. Lepoittevin J, Leblond I. Hapten-peptide T cell receptor interactions: Molecular basis for recognition of haptens by T lymphocytes . Eur J Dermatol. 1997; 7:151-4. Google Scholar9. Bonneville M, Chavagnac C, Vocanson M, Rozieres A, Benetiere J, Pernet I, et al. Skin contact irritation conditions the development and severity of allergic contact dermatitis . J Invest Dermatol. 2007; 127:1430-7. Google Scholar10. Sheretz EF. Controversies in contact dermatitis . Am J Contact Dermat. 1994; 4:130-5. Google Scholar11. Rycroft RJ, Menne T, Frosch PJ, Lepoittevin JP. Textbook of contact dermatitis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2001;439-68. Google Scholar12. Johansen J, Menne T, Christophersen J, Kaaber K, Veien N. Changes in the pattern of sensitization to common contact allergens in Denmark between 1985–86 and 1997–98, with a special view to the effect of preventive strategies . Br J Dermatol. 2000; 142:490-5. Google Scholar13. Schnuch A. PAFS: Population-adjusted frequency of sensitization . Contact Dermatitis. 1996; 34:377-82. Google Scholar14. Seidenari S, Manzini BM, Danese P, Motolese A. Patch and prick test study of 593 healthy subjects . Contact Dermatitis. 1990; 23:162-7. Google Scholar15. Nielsen NH, Menne T. Allergic contact sensitization in an unselected Danish population. The Glostrup Allergy Study, Denmark . Acta Derm Venereol. 1992; 72:456-60. Google Scholar16. Rajagopalan R, Anderson RT. Impact of patch testing on dermatology-specific quality of life in patients with allergic contact dermatitis . Am J Contact Dermat. 1997; 8:215-21. Google Scholar17. Gallo R, Baldari M, Fausti V, Montinari M, Santoro F, Christana K, et al. Measurement of a possible patch-testing outcome indicator . Contact Dermatitis. 2010; 62:150-6. Google Scholar18. Allergic Contact Dermatitis: Patch Testing Beyond the TR.U.E. TEST . J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2010; 3:36-41. Google Scholar19. Duarte I, Lazzarini R, Kobata CM. Contact dermatitis in adolescents . Am J Contact Dermat. 2003; 14:200-4. Google Scholar20. Schäfer T, Böhler E, Ruhdorfer S, Weigl L, Wessner D, Filipiak B, et al. Epidemiology of contact allergy in adults . Allergy. 2001; 56:1192-6. Google Scholar21. Uter W, Hegewald J, Aberer W, Ayala F, Bircher AJ, Brasch J, et al. The European standard series in 9 European countries, 2002/2003 - first results of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies . Contact Dermatitis. 2005; 53:136-45. Google Scholar22. Liden C. Nickel in jewelry and associated products . Contact Dermatitis. 1992; 26:73-5. Google Scholar23. Marks JG, Belsito DV, DeLeo VA, Fowler JF, Fransway AF, Maibach HI, et al. North American contact dermatitis group patch-test results, 1998–2000 . Am J Contact Dermat. 2003; 14:59-62. Google Scholar24. Modjtahedi BS, Modjtahedi SP, Maibach HI. The sex of the individual as a factor in allergic contact dermatitis . Contact Dermatitis. 2004; 50:53-9. Google Scholar25. Jensen CS, Lisby S, Baadsgaard O, Vølund A, Menné T. Decrease in nickel sensitization in a Danish schoolgirl population with ears pierced after implementation of a nickel-exposure regulation . Br J Dermatol. 2002; 146:636-42. Google Scholar26. Thyssen JP, Hald M, Avnstorp C, Veien NK, Lauerberg G, Nielsen NH, et al. Characteristics of nickel-allergic dermatitis patients seen in private dermatology clinics in Denmark: A questionnaire study . Acta Derm Venereol. 2009; 89:384-8. Google Scholar27. European Parliament and Council. Directive 94/27/EC of 30 June 1994 amending for the 12th time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations . Official Journal L. 1994; 188:1-2. Google Scholar28. Krasteva M, Nicolas JF, Chabeau G, Garrigue JL, Bour H, Thivolet J, et al. Dissociation of allergenic and immunogenic functions in contact sensitivity to paraphenylenediamine . Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 1993; 102:200-4. Google Scholar29. Disphanurat W. Contact allergy in eczema patients in Thammasat University Hospital . J Med Assoc Thai. 2010; 93(Suppl 7):S7-14. Google Scholar30. Chew AL, Bashir SJ, Hawk JL, Palmer R, White IR, McFadden JP. Contact and photocontact sensitization in chronic actinic dermatitis: A changing picture . Contact Dermatitis. 2010; 62:42-6. Google Scholar31. The European Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association (Colipa). The European cosmetic, toiletry and perfumery Market 2003. 2004;1-26. Google Scholar32. Sosted H, Hesse U, Menne T, Andersen KE, Johansen JD. Contact dermatitis to hair dyes in an adult Danish population – an interview based study . Br J Dermatol. 2005; 153:132-5. Google Scholar33. Hayakawa R, Suzuki M, Kaniwa M. A case of allergic contact dermatitis due to para-tertiary-butylphenolformaldehyde resin . Environ Dermatol. 1994; 1:171-8. Google Scholar34. Adachi A. JSCD Research Group Study Result of Patch test with standard allergen series of the Research Group of the Japanese patients with pigmented contact dermatitis of lichenoid type in 1993 . Environ Dermatol. 1996; 3:140-50. Google Scholar35. Kurikawa Y. Group study of the optimum concentrations of ketoprofen, tiaprofenic acid, suprofen and oxybenzone of the Japanese Standard Allergens and gold sodium thiosulfate in 2000 . Environ Dermatol. 2002; 9:39-46. Google Scholar36. Yoo JY, Al Naami M, Markowitz O, Hadi SM. Allergic contact dermatitis: Patch testing results at Mount Sinai Medical Center . Skinmed. 2010; 8:257-60. Google Scholar37. Milingou M, Tagka A, Armenaka M, Kimpouri K, Kouimintzis D, Katsarou A. Patch tests in children: A review of 13 years of experience in comparison with previous data . Pediatr Dermatol. 2010; 27:255-9. Google Scholar38. Ball LK, Ball R, Pratt RD. An assessment of thimerosal use in childhood vaccines . Pediatrics. 2001; 107:1147-54. Google Scholar39. el-Rab MO, al-Sheikh OA. Is the European standard series suitable for patch testing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia? Conytact Dermatitis. 1995; 33:310-4. Google Scholar Previous article Next article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 32, Issue 4July-August 2012 Metrics History Published online7 June 2012 InformationCopyright © 2012, Annals of Saudi MedicineThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.PDF download" @default.
• W2333996943 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2333996943 creator A5013805355 @default.
• W2333996943 creator A5075639914 @default.
• W2333996943 creator A5080831315 @default.
• W2333996943 creator A5089600920 @default.
• W2333996943 date "2012-07-01" @default.
• W2333996943 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W2333996943 title "Pattern of patch test reactivity among patients with clinical diagnosis of contact dermatitis: a hospital-based study" @default.
• W2333996943 cites W1968708638 @default.
• W2333996943 cites W1971761657 @default.
• W2333996943 cites W1979424546 @default.
• W2333996943 cites W1979688234 @default.
• W2333996943 cites W1991811971 @default.
• W2333996943 cites W2002643994 @default.
• W2333996943 cites W2007397114 @default.
• W2333996943 cites W2013113656 @default.
• W2333996943 cites W2016489887 @default.
• W2333996943 cites W2053258947 @default.
• W2333996943 cites W2059157479 @default.
• W2333996943 cites W2091812126 @default.
• W2333996943 cites W2092402833 @default.
• W2333996943 cites W2095259280 @default.
• W2333996943 cites W2104097572 @default.
• W2333996943 cites W2125505834 @default.
• W2333996943 cites W2152352107 @default.
• W2333996943 cites W2157138925 @default.
• W2333996943 cites W2165001017 @default.
• W2333996943 cites W2283611927 @default.
• W2333996943 cites W4211099137 @default.
• W2333996943 cites W4231388685 @default.
• W2333996943 cites W4232685804 @default.
• W2333996943 cites W4244078789 @default.
• W2333996943 doi "https://doi.org/10.5144/0256-4947.2012.404" @default.
• W2333996943 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/6081020" @default.
• W2333996943 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22705612" @default.
• W2333996943 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W2333996943 type Work @default.
• W2333996943 sameAs 2333996943 @default.
• W2333996943 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W2333996943 countsByYear W23339969432017 @default.
• W2333996943 countsByYear W23339969432022 @default.
• W2333996943 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2333996943 hasAuthorship W2333996943A5013805355 @default.
• W2333996943 hasAuthorship W2333996943A5075639914 @default.
• W2333996943 hasAuthorship W2333996943A5080831315 @default.
• W2333996943 hasAuthorship W2333996943A5089600920 @default.
• W2333996943 hasBestOaLocation W23339969431 @default.
• W2333996943 hasConcept C140764562 @default.
• W2333996943 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W2333996943 hasConcept C16005928 @default.
• W2333996943 hasConcept C203014093 @default.
• W2333996943 hasConcept C207480886 @default.
• W2333996943 hasConcept C2777267654 @default.
• W2333996943 hasConcept C2778091633 @default.
• W2333996943 hasConcept C3020497150 @default.
• W2333996943 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2333996943 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2333996943 hasConceptScore W2333996943C140764562 @default.
• W2333996943 hasConceptScore W2333996943C151730666 @default.
• W2333996943 hasConceptScore W2333996943C16005928 @default.
• W2333996943 hasConceptScore W2333996943C203014093 @default.
• W2333996943 hasConceptScore W2333996943C207480886 @default.
• W2333996943 hasConceptScore W2333996943C2777267654 @default.
• W2333996943 hasConceptScore W2333996943C2778091633 @default.
• W2333996943 hasConceptScore W2333996943C3020497150 @default.
• W2333996943 hasConceptScore W2333996943C71924100 @default.
• W2333996943 hasConceptScore W2333996943C86803240 @default.
• W2333996943 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W2333996943 hasLocation W23339969431 @default.
• W2333996943 hasLocation W23339969432 @default.
• W2333996943 hasLocation W23339969433 @default.
• W2333996943 hasLocation W23339969434 @default.
• W2333996943 hasOpenAccess W2333996943 @default.
• W2333996943 hasPrimaryLocation W23339969431 @default.
• W2333996943 hasRelatedWork W1490648399 @default.
• W2333996943 hasRelatedWork W1995704890 @default.
• W2333996943 hasRelatedWork W2075147343 @default.
• W2333996943 hasRelatedWork W2321873695 @default.
• W2333996943 hasRelatedWork W3134208491 @default.
• W2333996943 hasRelatedWork W4242749107 @default.
• W2333996943 hasRelatedWork W4244584448 @default.
• W2333996943 hasRelatedWork W4311049138 @default.
• W2333996943 hasRelatedWork W74014895 @default.
• W2333996943 hasRelatedWork W2565450113 @default.
• W2333996943 hasVolume "32" @default.
• W2333996943 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2333996943 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2333996943 magId "2333996943" @default.
• W2333996943 workType "article" @default.