PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 387824

Threshold responses in formaldehyde-sensitive subjects.

W P Jordan·W T Sherman·S E King
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Patch tests with three low concentrations of formaldehyde were applied continuously in formaldehyde-sensitive subjects for 1 wk. The closed patch test method produced a response to 30 parts per million (ppm) in some subjects by 120 continuous hours of testing. Thirteen subjects then sprayed a 30-ppm formaldehyde solution in an axilla on a double-blind, controlled, 2-wk-use test. Their responses to 30 ppm aqueous formaldehyde indicate that levels below this concentration should be tolerated by sensitive subjects if repeatedly applied to normal skin. Popular formaldehyde-releasing preservatives can be above or below this threshold-eliciting response.

Explore related subjects

Clinical Trials as TopicDouble-Blind MethodDrug ToleranceFormaldehydeHumansHypersensitivity, DelayedOintmentsPatch TestsSkin TestsClinical TrialControlled Clinical TrialJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

W P Jordan, W T Sherman, S E King. 1979. Threshold responses in formaldehyde-sensitive subjects.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0190-9622(79)70003-x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1992

Statistical handling of drop-outs in longitudinal clinical trials.

This paper considers the statistical complexities that arise due to outcome related drop-outs in longitudinal clinical trials of the randomized parallel groups design with fixed assessment times and an explanatory aim. The shortcomings of currently popular methods of coping with the problem of drop-outs are discussed. It is proposed that progress can be made by applying the modern methodology that was primarily developed for sample surveys with non-response and for observational studies. A practical application using the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression is presented.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed1992

Importance of trends in the interpretation of an overall odds ratio in the meta-analysis of clinical trials.

This paper contains a proposition related to the publication of meta-analyses of clinical trials. We consider the situation where the results of a number of trials are summarized by a common or typical odds ratio. We show that stating such an odds ratio as the summary of evidence from a number of trials can be misleading if certain systematic differences between trials exist. In such cases the author should state not just one odds ratio but also its dependence on the relevant characteristics of the trials. In particular, we propose that those reporting a meta-analysis state in advance a (limited) number of variables to be considered for potential interaction with the exposure (risk factor or treatment) of interest. The list might include centre size and the odds in the placebo or control group if such an effect is a priori clinically plausible. The trials should be ordered according to each of these variables and a trend test for the odds ratio should be computed. Apart from a 'genuine' effect, an appreciable interaction could also be indicative of the (multiplicative) odds ratio being an inappropriate measure for the particular meta-analysis. Without any consideration as to the possibility of interaction, the meta-analysis should be considered incomplete. If such an interaction exists, the odds ratio should be stated as a function of the interacting variable, either as a formula or (preferably) in a table stating the odds ratio for a number of different values of the interacting variable, and not as a single summary statistic.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗