Contact Dermatitis最新文献

{"title":"Allergic Contact Dermatitis to 1.6-Hexanediol Diacrylate in Ski Boots.","authors":"Nadia Raison-Peyron, Alison Poncy, Jakob Dahlin, Cecilia Svedman","doi":"10.1111/cod.70005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.70005","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144741417","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Results of Patch Testing With a Brazilian Propolis Dilution Series.","authors":"Emma M van Oers, Norbertus A Ipenburg, Anton C de Groot, Thomas Rustemeyer","doi":"10.1111/cod.70002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.70002","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patch testing with Brazilian propolis 10% pet. has yielded very high rates of positive reactions (> 20%). For most, no clinical relevance could be found. False-positive reactions from irritancy of the test material were suggested as a possible explanation.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To assess whether positive patch test reactions to Brazilian propolis 10% pet. are allergic, irritant, or may be both.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In a prospective study, consecutive patients suspected of contact dermatitis were patch tested with Brazilian propolis in a dilution series of 10%, 3.3% and 1% in petrolatum.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 200 consecutive patients, 56 (28%) had one or more positive Brazilian propolis patch tests. Eighteen propolis-allergic individuals (32.1%) reacted only to the 10% concentration, 21 patients (37.5%) reacted to all 3 concentrations, 13 (23.2%) to 2 concentrations, and 4 (7.1%) to a lower concentration only. There was a strong association with fragrances, especially with the fragrance mixes 1 and 2.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our data seem to indicate that the positive patch test reactions to Brazilian propolis 10% pet., or at least a large part thereof, are allergic in nature. Previous fragrance sensitisation may play an important role in the large number of positive patch tests to Brazilian propolis.</p>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2025-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144667348","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Coumarin in a Tinted Moisturiser Containing Melilotus officinalis (Sweet Clover) Extract","authors":"Kay Lin Ng,&nbsp;Mei-Mui Tam,&nbsp;Rosemary Nixon","doi":"10.1111/cod.14836","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.14836","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"93 4","pages":"341-343"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144642017","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evaluation of Patients With Positive Patch Test Reactions to Rubber Additives: A Retrospective Study From Turkey Between 1996 and 2023.","authors":"İbrahim Halil Aydoğdu, Esen Özkaya","doi":"10.1111/cod.70000","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.70000","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Rubber additives are common causes of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) worldwide, yet data from Turkey remain limited.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate the prevalence of rubber additive sensitisation and its clinical/occupational relevance in a tertiary referral centre.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective study on 2687 consecutively patch-tested patients with rubber additives at our allergy unit between 1996 and 2023.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Rubber sensitisation was found in 10.6%, with a slight increase after 2010. Male predominance was noted (female: male = 1:2.3). Thiurams and carbamates were the most frequent sensitizers. ACD was diagnosed in 7.9%, primarily caused by gloves (85.5%). Hands were most commonly affected (94.4%). Logistic regression analysis showed that thiuram and carbamate sensitisation was significantly associated with hand eczema, while benzothiazole derivatives were linked to foot eczema. Airborne ACD occurred in 4.2%, mainly in healthcare workers. Hand eczema with and without wrist extension was observed with similar frequency. Occupational ACD accounted for 79.3% of cases, especially among construction (56.8%) and healthcare workers (14.8%), with a relative increase in the latter group after 2015.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The high prevalence of sensitisation from rubber gloves is concerning. Legal measures are urgently needed, including safer additives and clearer glove labelling. Patch testing remains essential, even without the classic glove-pattern distribution.</p>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2025-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144616629","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Assessment of Practices in Chronic Hand Eczema Management From CHEMIN, a National Delphi Survey","authors":"Claire Bernier,&nbsp;Marie-Noëlle Crépy,&nbsp;Bruno Halioua,&nbsp;Camille Leleu,&nbsp;Marina Schverer,&nbsp;Solenn Le Clanche,&nbsp;Marie Tauber,&nbsp;Angèle Soria","doi":"10.1111/cod.70001","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.70001","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Chronic Hand Eczema (CHE), affecting 4.9% of the French general population [<span>1</span>], is the leading occupational disease causing disability [<span>2</span>]. CHE management lacks standardised national guidelines, which may lead practitioners to rely on personal experience [<span>3, 4</span>]. We investigated, for the first time, French CHE diagnosis practices to assess ESCD guideline application.</p><p>A two-round Delphi method survey, developed with six CHE experts, was distributed online from July 2023 to January 2024 through French medical societies. Targeted physicians were specialists in CHE, primarily dermatologists. Consensus was defined as agreement by &gt; 66.6% of respondents. GDPR compliance and respondent confidentiality were ensured.</p><p>A total of 135 respondents were analysed (Figure 1); 120 participated in round two. Most were dermatologists, with smaller proportions of dermatologists-allergists, occupational health physicians, and allergists. Respondents saw ~6 CHE patients/month.</p><p>Consensus was reached on clinical signs of CHE: itch, vesicles, lichenification, and fissures/bleeding (Figure 2A). Hyperkeratosis, desquamation, oedema, and pain were not considered specific indicators.</p><p>No consensus emerged on standardised severity tools (Figure 2B,C). Among those using a severity scale, some used DLQI, whereas most relied on clinical signs (Figure 2B). Respondents identified clinical and functional severity signs (Figure 2D). Over one-third included sick leave as additional criteria (Figure 2E).</p><p>Conditions in which allergology assessment is suggested (Table S1) and topics discussed with patients (Table S2) are not fully aligned. Notably, patients' quality of life (QoL) and food allergy were less frequently addressed.</p><p>This Delphi, with a high response rate and strong representativeness [<span>5</span>], identified key areas for reflection to establish a clear alignment of essential steps to be implemented in France and to ensure better standardisation of patient care.</p><p>There was strong consensus on certain clinical signs as indicative of CHE, aligning with European guidelines [<span>3</span>]. Others were not but remained consistent with Yuksel et al. who found that combining ≥ 2 clinical signs with itching aids diagnosis [<span>6</span>].</p><p>The Delphi method had limitations, notably the limited input from allergists and, most importantly, the lack of consensus on severity scales—a critical finding of this study. Although some used DLQI, most based severity on specific clinical signs alone. Although European guidelines provide a comprehensive overview of these clinical and functional signs, our study presents new insights that could help improve severity diagnosis such as occupational incapacity. Besides, given that the severity reported by patients often exceeds the severity assessed by physicians, a standardised method could provide a more accurate assessment of CHE severity, potentially ","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"93 4","pages":"336-338"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cod.70001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144607675","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Sensitization Patterns to Cyanoacrylate-Based Surgical Glues","authors":"Lucrezia Bianchetti,&nbsp;Anna Walker,&nbsp;Ophelie Marchal,&nbsp;Laura Bruschi,&nbsp;Héloïse Wüthrich,&nbsp;An Goossens,&nbsp;Ella Dendooven,&nbsp;Olivier Aerts,&nbsp;Curdin Conrad,&nbsp;Michel Gilliet,&nbsp;Teofila Seremet","doi":"10.1111/cod.14838","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.14838","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Surgical glues are increasingly used, offering advantages like reduced scarring and faster wound closure. However, they pose risks of localised and disseminated allergic contact dermatitis caused by cyanoacrylate monomers.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study aims to evaluate sensitisation patterns to cyanoacrylate-based surgical glues, the usefulness of testing with the commercially available ethyl cyanoacrylate, and cross-reactions between cyanoacrylates and (meth)acrylates.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Patients/Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Sixteen patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from surgical adhesives were patch tested with the European Standard and Acrylate series (only containing ethyl cyanoacrylate) among other series, of whom 15 were tested with the surgical glues used. Clinical data, including demographics and surgical histories, were collected.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Fifteen patients (94%) tested positively to surgical glues, with 81% showing positive reactions to ethyl cyanoacrylate, to which the patient not tested to the glue “as is” also reacted. Three ethyl cyanoacrylate-negative patients reacted to Dermabond Prineo. Exclusive sensitisation to ethyl cyanoacrylate was observed in eight patients, while five reacted to other (meth)acrylic compounds.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Ethyl cyanoacrylate is a screening agent for surgical-glue sensitised patients, but if negative, tape-stripping-modified patch testing, also with the glues, is indicated. Cross-reactions can occur between cyanoacrylates and co-reactions (concomitant sensitization) with certain (meth)acrylates. Primary sensitisation is particularly relevant in patients undergoing treatment with cyanoacrylate-based glues for the first time, rather than because of previous exposure to other sources.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"93 4","pages":"328-335"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cod.14838","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144574965","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Slippery Slope: Is Benzyl Alcohol a Contact Allergen?","authors":"Olivier Aerts, Jeanne Duus Johansen, Carola Lidén, Wolfgang Uter, Ian R White","doi":"10.1111/cod.14831","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cod.14831","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144574964","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Nickel Allergy and Piercings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Benedikte von Spreckelsen,&nbsp;Mikkel Bak Jensen,&nbsp;Jeanne Duus Johansen,&nbsp;Malin Glindvad Ahlström","doi":"10.1111/cod.14837","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.14837","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Nickel is the most frequent cause of allergic contact dermatitis in Europe and worldwide despite 20 years of regulation. The aim of this study is to systematically assess (i) the risk of nickel allergy associated with piercings and (ii) the proportion of earrings for piercings on the market that release excessive amounts of nickel. The databases PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched. Regarding (i): nickel allergy was significantly associated with piercings in the general population (OR 5.9 [95% CI: 3.6–9.4], <i>n</i> = 5333) and in dermatitis patients (OR: 3.6 [95% CI: 2.3–5.8], <i>n</i> = 20 330). The etiological fraction was 82% (95% CI: 55.2%–92.8%) and 69.7% (95% CI: 62.7%–75.3%), respectively. Regarding (ii): critical nickel release, as determined by dimethylglyoxime (DMG) screening, was identified in 11.3% of European earrings, while a much higher proportion was found in earrings from Asia (34.5%) and North America (31.1%). Of concern, as determined by EN1811, 24.7% of European earrings intended for piercing exceeded regulatory limits. In conclusion, piercing poses a significant risk factor for nickel allergy and a large proportion of earrings still release nickel in amounts that may result in nickel allergy and allergic nickel dermatitis. Stricter enforcement of existing regulations and consideration of new measures are essential.</p>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"93 4","pages":"275-284"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cod.14837","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144559434","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Carba Mix—In Vitro Investigations of Potential Cocktail Effects in Patch Tests With Rubber Allergens","authors":"Linda Ljungberg Silic,&nbsp;Renato Ivan de Ávila,&nbsp;Sofía Carreira-Santos,&nbsp;Gábor Merényi,&nbsp;Ola Bergendorff,&nbsp;Kathrin S. Zeller","doi":"10.1111/cod.14833","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.14833","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The carba mix is used to screen rubber chemical allergy and consists of three rubber sensitising chemicals: 1% (w/w) zinc diethyldithiocarbamate (ZDEC), 1% (w/w) zinc dibutyldithiocarbamate (ZDBC) and 1% (w/w) 1,3-diphenylguanidine (DPG), all in petrolatum. However, carba mix patch test results can be difficult to interpret, which may be linked to so-called ‘cocktail’ effects.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The carba mix was used as a ‘model mixture’ to better understand human reactions observed in clinical patch testing.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We investigated the responses of a human cell model resembling dendritic cells to the carba mix single constituents ZDEC, ZDBC and DPG and to predefined mixtures capturing the molar composition of the carba mix using transcriptomic approaches and immunological and biochemical assays.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We detected unique cell responses to individual chemicals, where DPG was inducing ROS production and affecting autophagic flux. The combination of ZDEC, ZDBC and DPG induced higher levels of IL-8 secretion than expected based on the IL-8 levels in response to single chemical exposures.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The data collected in this study support the hypothesis that the carba mix can give rise to cocktail effects. Considering exposure profiles, patch testing with separate carba mix sensitisers may be more appropriate.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"93 4","pages":"316-327"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cod.14833","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144552515","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Not Just Pink Eye: Allergic Contact Dermatitis to Alcaftadine 0.25% Ophthalmic Solution","authors":"Mayra Betancourt Ponce,&nbsp;Margo Reeder","doi":"10.1111/cod.14835","DOIUrl":"10.1111/cod.14835","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Periorbital dermatitis is frequently due to allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and patients describe symptoms of swelling, itch, and redness on the eyelids and surrounding skin [&lt;span&gt;1&lt;/span&gt;]. Common causative allergens include metals, preservatives, fragrances, and acrylates, whereas common sources include cosmetics and other personal care products, jewellery and nail products [&lt;span&gt;1-3&lt;/span&gt;]. Additionally, allergens in topical medications, mainly eye drops and antibiotics, have been recognised as important precipitants of periorbital ACD [&lt;span&gt;1-5&lt;/span&gt;].&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Patient 1 (64-year-old female) with a history of Sjögren's syndrome with keratoconjunctivitis sicca and corneal scar of the left eye presented with a 4-year history of intermittent periorbital redness and swelling (Figure 1a). Patient 2 (50-year-old female) with a history of Sjögren's syndrome presented with a 4-month history of recurrent eyelid dermatitis described as itchy, scaly and red. Patient 3 (38-year-old female) with a history of bilateral retinal lattice degeneration and prior retinal surgeries presented with a 6-month history of recurrent periorbital dermatitis associated with itching, swelling and conjunctival injection (Figure 1c). All patients were using alcaftadine 0.25% solution (Lastacaft) drops and other eye care products for several months to years (Table 1). Patch testing was performed using a standard technique with Finn Chambers (SmartPractice, Phoenix) on Scanpor tape (Norgesplaster Alpharma AS Vennesla, Norway) and included the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) screening series, an expanded cosmetic series, and custom patches to the patients' eye drops and relevant eye care products. The skin was gently scratched prior to the application of eyedrops as previously described [&lt;span&gt;7&lt;/span&gt;]. All three patients tested positive (+, Figure 1b,d) to Lastacaft (ingredients: benzalkonium chloride, edetate disodium, monobasic sodium phosphate, purified water, sodium chloride, sodium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid) and negative to benzalkonium chloride and other eye products at days 4 and 5 (Table 1). Of the two patients with clinical follow-up, both showed improvement with discontinuation of Lastacaft drops.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Alcaftadine, the active ingredient in Lastacaft, is primarily a H&lt;sub&gt;1&lt;/sub&gt; histamine receptor antagonist and mast cell stabiliser. It is available in the United States as an over-the-counter medication and is commonly used in the treatment of itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis. Prior to this report, only one case of ACD to alcaftadine 0.25% solution had been described [&lt;span&gt;8&lt;/span&gt;].&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ketotifen and olapatadine are other antihistamines used as active ingredients in eyedrop solutions and have also been reported to cause ACD [&lt;span&gt;9, 10&lt;/span&gt;]. Antihistamine eye drops are used to treat allergic conjunctivitis and ACD to these agents can present with similar symptoms, such as itching, swelling, and redness, delaying time","PeriodicalId":10527,"journal":{"name":"Contact Dermatitis","volume":"93 4","pages":"347-349"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2025-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cod.14835","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144526664","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}