[1]Berthelot K., Lecomte S., Estevez Y., Peruch F. REF (Hev b 1) and SRPP (Hev b 3): an overview on rubber particle proteins. Biochimie. 2014;106:1-9. Hevea brasiliensis
[2]Carøe T.K., Ebbehøj N., Agner T. A survey of exposures related to recognized occupational contact dermatitis in Denmark in 2010. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:56-62.
[3]Clemmensen K.B.C., Carøe T.K., Thomsen S.F. Two-year follow-up survey of patients with allergic contact dermatitis from an occupational cohort. Is the prognosis dependent on the omnipresence of the allergen? Br J Dermatol. 2014;170:1100-1105.
[4]Pesonen M., Jolanki R., Larese Filon F. Patch test results of the European baseline series among patients with occupational contact dermatitis across Europe – analyses of the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergy network, 2002-2010. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72:154-163.
[5]Geier J., Lessmann H., Uter W., Schnuch A. Occupational rubber glove allergy: results of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 1995-2001. Contact Dermatitis. 2003;48:39-44. Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK)
[6]Hansson C., Pontén A., Svedman C., Bergendorff O. Reaction profile in patch testing with allergens formed during vulcanization of rubber. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:300-308.
[7]Pontén A., Hamnerius N., Bruze M. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by sterile non-latex protective gloves: clinical investigation and chemical analyses. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;68:103-110.
[8]Geier J., Lessmann H., Mahler V. Occupational contact allergy caused by rubber gloves – nothing has changed. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;67:149-156.
[9]Bhargava K., White I.R., White J.M.L. Thiuram patch test positivity 1980-2006: incidence is now falling. Contact Dermatitis. 2009;60:222-223.
[10]Uter W., Hegewald J., Pfahlberg A. Contact allergy to thiurams: multifactorial analysis of clinical surveillance data collected by the IVDK network. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2010;83:675-681.
[11]Knudsen B., Lerbaek A., Johansen J.D., Menné T. Reduction in the frequency of sensitization to thiurams. A result of legislation? Contact Dermatitis. 2006;54:170-171.
[12]Warburton K.L., Urwin R., Carder M. UK rates of occupational skin disease attributed to rubber accelerators, 1996-2012. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72:305-311.
[13]Cao L.Y., Taylor J.S., Sood A. Allergic contact dermatitis to synthetic rubber gloves: changing trends in patch test reactions to accelerators. Arch Dermatol. 2010;146:1001-1007.
[14]Palosuo T., Antoniadou I., Gottrup F., Phillips P. Latex medical gloves: time for a reappraisal. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2011;156:234-246.
[15]Blaabjerg M.S.B., Andersen K.E., Bindslev-Jensen C., Mortz C.G. Decrease in the rate of sensitization and clinical allergy to natural rubber latex. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;73:21-28.
[16]Stocks S.J., McNamee R., Turner S. Assessing the impact of national level interventions on workplace respiratory disease in the UK: part 1 – changes in workplace exposure legislation and market forces. Occup Environ Med. 2013;70:476-482.
[17]Creytens K., Swevers A., De Haes P., Goossens A. Airborne allergic contact dermatitis caused by disulfiram. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72:405-407.
[18]Pföhler C., Körner R., Müller C.S.L., Vogt T. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis of the ears caused by thiurams in a headset. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;65:242-243.
[19]Landeck L., Uter W., John S.M. Patch test characteristics of patients referred for suspected contact allergy of the feet – retrospective 10-year cross-sectional study of the IVDK data. Contact Dermatitis. 2012;66:271-278.
[20]Baeck M., Cawet B., Tennstedt D., Goossens A. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by latex (natural rubber)-free gloves in healthcare workers. Contact Dermatitis. 2013;68:54-55.
[21]Dahlin J., Bergendorff O., Vindenes H.K. Triphenylguanidine, a new (old?) rubber accelerator detected in surgical gloves that may cause allergic contact dermatitis. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;71:242-246.
[22]Hamnerius N., Pontén A., Persson C., Bergendorff O. Factors influencing the skin exposure to diphenylguanidine in surgical gloves. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:59-60.
[23]Ramzy A.G., Hagvall L., Pei M.N. Investigation of diethylthiourea and ethyl isothiocyanate as potent skin allergens in chloroprene rubber. Contact Dermatitis. 2015;72:139-146.
[24]Samuelsson K., Bergström M.A., Jonsson C.A. Diphenylthiourea, a common rubber chemical, is bioactivated to potent skin sensitizers. Chem Res Toxicol. 2011;24:35-44.
[25]Poreaux C., Penven E., Langlois E. Occupational contact dermatitis at the zoo. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:51.
[26]Ghys K., Goossens A. Diethylthiourea, also a contact allergen in a young sporty child. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;70:91.
[27]Liippo J., Ackermann L., Lammintausta K. Occupational allergic contact dermatitis caused by diethylthiourea in a neoprene handle of a cleaning trolley. Contact Dermatitis. 2011;64:359-360.
[28]Reckling C., Sheraz A., Engfeldt M., Bruze M. Occupational nitrile glove allergy to pigment blue 15. Br J Dermatol. 2014;171:132.
[29]Vanden Broecke K., Zimerson E., Bruze M., Goossens A. Severe allergic contact dermatitis caused by a rubber glove coated with a moisturizer. Contact Dermatitis. 2014;71:117-119.
[30]Ohata C., Yoneda M. Allergic contact dermatitis due to dazomet absorbed by agricultural rubber boots. Acta Derm Venereol. 2013;93:81-82.
[31]Ebo D.G., Hagendorens M.M., De Knop K.J. Component-resolved diagnosis from latex allergy by microarray. Clin Exp Allergy. 2010;40:348-358.
[32]Canonica G.W., Ansotegui I.J., Pawankar R. A WAO–ARIA–GALEN consensus document on molecular-based allergy diagnostics. World Allergy Organ J. 2013;6:17. 2
[33]Luengo O., Cardona V. Component resolved diagnosis: when should it be used? Clin Transl Allergy. 2014;4:28.
[34]Werfel T., Asero R., Ballmer-Weber B.K. Position paper of the EAACI: food allergy due to immunological cross-reactions with common inhalant allergens. Allergy. 2015;70:1079-1090.
[35]Quercia O., Stefanini G.F., Scardovi A., Asero R. Patients monosensitised to Hey b 8 ( latex profilin) may safely undergo major surgery in a normal (non-latex safe) environment. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;41:112. Hevea brasiliensis
[36]Gabriel M.F., Tavares-Ratado P., Peixinho C.M. Evaluation and comparison of commercially available latex extracts for skin prick tests. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2013;23:478-486.
[38]Cleenewerck M.-B. Update on medical and surgical gloves. Eur J Dermatol. 2010;20:434-442.
[39]Assadian O., Kramer A., Ouriel K. Suppression of surgeons’ bacterial hand flora during surgical procedures with a new antimicrobial surgical glove. Surg Infect. 2013;15:43-49.
[41]Mischke C., Verbeek J.H., Saarto A. Gloves, extra gloves or special types of gloves for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries in healthcare personnel. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;3:CD009573.
[42]Palu S. Allergie au latex d’Hévéa, développement de la production d’un latex naturel non allergique à partir du guayule () en remplacement du latex d’ (projet européen EU-PEARLS). Progrès en dermato-allergologie. Montpellier: John Libbey Eurotext; 2011. Parthenium argentatum GrayHevea brasiliensisp. 71-88
[43]Cornish K. Assessment of the risk of type I latex allergy sensitization or reaction during use of products made from latex derived from guayule and other alternative rubber producing species. Rubber Sci. 2012;25:139-155.
[44]Siler D.J., Cornish K., Hamilton R.G. Absence of cross-reactivity of IgE antibodies from subjects allergic to latex with a new source of natural rubber latex from guayule (). J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1996;98:895-902. Hevea brasiliensisParthenium argentatum
[45]Stumpf D.K., Ray D.T., Schloman W.W. Identification of a contact allergen in guayule latex and formulated guayule latex products. J Am Oil Chem Soc. 2001;78:217-218.
[46]Rodriguez E., Reynolds G.W., Thompson J.A. Potent contact allergen in the rubber plant guayule (). Science. 1981;211:1444-1445. Parthenium argentatum