Patch test results in patients with suspected contact allergy to shoes: Retrospective IVDK data analysis 2009–2018

Background Allergic contact dermatitis caused by shoes is common and new relevant allergens have been identified. Objectives To investigate the pattern of type IV sensitization in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis of the feet related to shoes as a presumed culprit trigger. Methods...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Contact dermatitis 2021-09, Vol.85 (3), p.297-306
Hauptverfasser: Traidl, Stephan, Werfel, Thomas, Ruëff, Franziska, Simon, Dagmar, Lang, Claudia, Geier, Johannes
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 306
container_issue 3
container_start_page 297
container_title Contact dermatitis
container_volume 85
creator Traidl, Stephan
Werfel, Thomas
Ruëff, Franziska
Simon, Dagmar
Lang, Claudia
Geier, Johannes
description Background Allergic contact dermatitis caused by shoes is common and new relevant allergens have been identified. Objectives To investigate the pattern of type IV sensitization in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis of the feet related to shoes as a presumed culprit trigger. Methods Retrospective analysis of data of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 2009‐2018. Results Six hundred twenty‐five patients with presumed shoe dermatitis were identified in a cohort of 119 417 patients. Compared to patients with suspected contact sensitization from other allergen sources (n = 118 792), study group patients were more frequently sensitized to potassium dichromate (10.8% vs 3.5%), colophony (7.2% vs 3.7%), mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT; 4.0% vs 0.6%), mercapto mix (4.6% vs 0.6%), and p‐tert‐butylphenol formaldehyde resin (1.6% vs 0.5%). Sensitizations to urea formaldehyde resin, melamine formaldehyde resin, glutaraldehyde, tricresyl phosphate, and phenyl glycidylether were rare. Moreover, reactions to compounds in the leather or textile dyes test series were scarce. Conclusion A distinct sensitization pattern was observed in patients with suspected allergy to shoe materials. Although substances with low sensitization rates should be removed from the leather and shoe patch test series, novel potential allergens should be added. Patients with suspected shoe dermatitis were more frequently sensitized to potassium dichromate, colophony, mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT), mercaptomix, and p‐tertbutylphenol formaldehyde resin (PTBP‐FR). Sensitizations to urea formaldehyde resin, melamine formaldehyde resin, glutaraldehyde, tricresyl phosphate, and phenyl glycidylether were rare. Patch test recommendations for patients with shoe dermatitis should be revised on the basis of this data and recent publications.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/cod.13868
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2516843224</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2560568603</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3888-b8f533a45b2e53f4a5d3490dab20c17fa70881f668e0772fad57095ac7b7ddbd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10cFO3DAQBmCroioL9NAXQJa4wCEwtmPHyw0t0KIigRBwjSb2pBuUTZbYAe2t79A35ElqWNpDpfpiHz79mvHP2BcBhyKdI9f7Q6GssR_YRBiADLQyG2wCAnQmbKE22VYIDwDC5NJ-YptKWSuF1hMWrzG6OY8UIh8ojG0MvOn4EmNDXXo_N3HOwxiW5CJ57vouoosc25aGHyseex7mPYVjfkNx6N9Y80T84v70O_cYkWOH7So0gUuA6cvPXxKE3WEfa2wDfX6_t9nd-dnt7Ft2efX1YnZymbk0n80qW2ulMNeVJK3qHLVX-RQ8VhKcKGoswFpRG2MJikLW6HUBU42uqArvK6-22f46dzn0j2NasVw0wVHbYkf9GEqphbG5kjJPdO8f-tCPQ5r9VRnQxhpQSR2slUu7hoHqcjk0CxxWpYDytYoyVVG-VZHs7nviWC3I_5V__j6BozV4blpa_T-pnF2driN_A2lEkrU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2560568603</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Patch test results in patients with suspected contact allergy to shoes: Retrospective IVDK data analysis 2009–2018</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Traidl, Stephan ; Werfel, Thomas ; Ruëff, Franziska ; Simon, Dagmar ; Lang, Claudia ; Geier, Johannes</creator><creatorcontrib>Traidl, Stephan ; Werfel, Thomas ; Ruëff, Franziska ; Simon, Dagmar ; Lang, Claudia ; Geier, Johannes ; IVDK ; for the IVDK</creatorcontrib><description>Background Allergic contact dermatitis caused by shoes is common and new relevant allergens have been identified. Objectives To investigate the pattern of type IV sensitization in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis of the feet related to shoes as a presumed culprit trigger. Methods Retrospective analysis of data of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 2009‐2018. Results Six hundred twenty‐five patients with presumed shoe dermatitis were identified in a cohort of 119 417 patients. Compared to patients with suspected contact sensitization from other allergen sources (n = 118 792), study group patients were more frequently sensitized to potassium dichromate (10.8% vs 3.5%), colophony (7.2% vs 3.7%), mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT; 4.0% vs 0.6%), mercapto mix (4.6% vs 0.6%), and p‐tert‐butylphenol formaldehyde resin (1.6% vs 0.5%). Sensitizations to urea formaldehyde resin, melamine formaldehyde resin, glutaraldehyde, tricresyl phosphate, and phenyl glycidylether were rare. Moreover, reactions to compounds in the leather or textile dyes test series were scarce. Conclusion A distinct sensitization pattern was observed in patients with suspected allergy to shoe materials. Although substances with low sensitization rates should be removed from the leather and shoe patch test series, novel potential allergens should be added. Patients with suspected shoe dermatitis were more frequently sensitized to potassium dichromate, colophony, mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT), mercaptomix, and p‐tertbutylphenol formaldehyde resin (PTBP‐FR). Sensitizations to urea formaldehyde resin, melamine formaldehyde resin, glutaraldehyde, tricresyl phosphate, and phenyl glycidylether were rare. Patch test recommendations for patients with shoe dermatitis should be revised on the basis of this data and recent publications.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0105-1873</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-0536</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/cod.13868</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33882155</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Age Distribution ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Allergens ; Allergens - adverse effects ; Allergies ; Austria - epidemiology ; Child ; contact allergy ; Contact dermatitis ; Dermatitis ; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - epidemiology ; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - etiology ; Dermatitis, Occupational - epidemiology ; Dermatitis, Occupational - etiology ; Female ; Foot Dermatoses - chemically induced ; Foot Dermatoses - epidemiology ; Formaldehyde ; Germany - epidemiology ; Humans ; Leather ; Male ; Manufactured Materials - adverse effects ; mercaptobenzothiazole ; Middle Aged ; patch testing ; Patch Tests ; Potassium dichromate ; p‐tert‐butylphenol formaldehyde resin ; Retrospective Studies ; shoe dermatitis ; Shoes - adverse effects ; Switzerland - epidemiology ; Tanning ; Textiles - adverse effects ; Tricresyl phosphate ; Urea ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Contact dermatitis, 2021-09, Vol.85 (3), p.297-306</ispartof><rights>2021 The Authors. published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2021 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2021. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3888-b8f533a45b2e53f4a5d3490dab20c17fa70881f668e0772fad57095ac7b7ddbd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3888-b8f533a45b2e53f4a5d3490dab20c17fa70881f668e0772fad57095ac7b7ddbd3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-8965-9407 ; 0000-0002-5047-8948 ; 0000-0003-4806-599X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fcod.13868$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fcod.13868$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33882155$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Traidl, Stephan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Werfel, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruëff, Franziska</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simon, Dagmar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lang, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geier, Johannes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>IVDK</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>for the IVDK</creatorcontrib><title>Patch test results in patients with suspected contact allergy to shoes: Retrospective IVDK data analysis 2009–2018</title><title>Contact dermatitis</title><addtitle>Contact Dermatitis</addtitle><description>Background Allergic contact dermatitis caused by shoes is common and new relevant allergens have been identified. Objectives To investigate the pattern of type IV sensitization in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis of the feet related to shoes as a presumed culprit trigger. Methods Retrospective analysis of data of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 2009‐2018. Results Six hundred twenty‐five patients with presumed shoe dermatitis were identified in a cohort of 119 417 patients. Compared to patients with suspected contact sensitization from other allergen sources (n = 118 792), study group patients were more frequently sensitized to potassium dichromate (10.8% vs 3.5%), colophony (7.2% vs 3.7%), mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT; 4.0% vs 0.6%), mercapto mix (4.6% vs 0.6%), and p‐tert‐butylphenol formaldehyde resin (1.6% vs 0.5%). Sensitizations to urea formaldehyde resin, melamine formaldehyde resin, glutaraldehyde, tricresyl phosphate, and phenyl glycidylether were rare. Moreover, reactions to compounds in the leather or textile dyes test series were scarce. Conclusion A distinct sensitization pattern was observed in patients with suspected allergy to shoe materials. Although substances with low sensitization rates should be removed from the leather and shoe patch test series, novel potential allergens should be added. Patients with suspected shoe dermatitis were more frequently sensitized to potassium dichromate, colophony, mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT), mercaptomix, and p‐tertbutylphenol formaldehyde resin (PTBP‐FR). Sensitizations to urea formaldehyde resin, melamine formaldehyde resin, glutaraldehyde, tricresyl phosphate, and phenyl glycidylether were rare. Patch test recommendations for patients with shoe dermatitis should be revised on the basis of this data and recent publications.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Age Distribution</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Allergens</subject><subject>Allergens - adverse effects</subject><subject>Allergies</subject><subject>Austria - epidemiology</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>contact allergy</subject><subject>Contact dermatitis</subject><subject>Dermatitis</subject><subject>Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - epidemiology</subject><subject>Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - etiology</subject><subject>Dermatitis, Occupational - epidemiology</subject><subject>Dermatitis, Occupational - etiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Foot Dermatoses - chemically induced</subject><subject>Foot Dermatoses - epidemiology</subject><subject>Formaldehyde</subject><subject>Germany - epidemiology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Leather</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Manufactured Materials - adverse effects</subject><subject>mercaptobenzothiazole</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>patch testing</subject><subject>Patch Tests</subject><subject>Potassium dichromate</subject><subject>p‐tert‐butylphenol formaldehyde resin</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>shoe dermatitis</subject><subject>Shoes - adverse effects</subject><subject>Switzerland - epidemiology</subject><subject>Tanning</subject><subject>Textiles - adverse effects</subject><subject>Tricresyl phosphate</subject><subject>Urea</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0105-1873</issn><issn>1600-0536</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp10cFO3DAQBmCroioL9NAXQJa4wCEwtmPHyw0t0KIigRBwjSb2pBuUTZbYAe2t79A35ElqWNpDpfpiHz79mvHP2BcBhyKdI9f7Q6GssR_YRBiADLQyG2wCAnQmbKE22VYIDwDC5NJ-YptKWSuF1hMWrzG6OY8UIh8ojG0MvOn4EmNDXXo_N3HOwxiW5CJ57vouoosc25aGHyseex7mPYVjfkNx6N9Y80T84v70O_cYkWOH7So0gUuA6cvPXxKE3WEfa2wDfX6_t9nd-dnt7Ft2efX1YnZymbk0n80qW2ulMNeVJK3qHLVX-RQ8VhKcKGoswFpRG2MJikLW6HUBU42uqArvK6-22f46dzn0j2NasVw0wVHbYkf9GEqphbG5kjJPdO8f-tCPQ5r9VRnQxhpQSR2slUu7hoHqcjk0CxxWpYDytYoyVVG-VZHs7nviWC3I_5V__j6BozV4blpa_T-pnF2driN_A2lEkrU</recordid><startdate>202109</startdate><enddate>202109</enddate><creator>Traidl, Stephan</creator><creator>Werfel, Thomas</creator><creator>Ruëff, Franziska</creator><creator>Simon, Dagmar</creator><creator>Lang, Claudia</creator><creator>Geier, Johannes</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8965-9407</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5047-8948</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4806-599X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202109</creationdate><title>Patch test results in patients with suspected contact allergy to shoes: Retrospective IVDK data analysis 2009–2018</title><author>Traidl, Stephan ; Werfel, Thomas ; Ruëff, Franziska ; Simon, Dagmar ; Lang, Claudia ; Geier, Johannes</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3888-b8f533a45b2e53f4a5d3490dab20c17fa70881f668e0772fad57095ac7b7ddbd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Age Distribution</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Allergens</topic><topic>Allergens - adverse effects</topic><topic>Allergies</topic><topic>Austria - epidemiology</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>contact allergy</topic><topic>Contact dermatitis</topic><topic>Dermatitis</topic><topic>Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - epidemiology</topic><topic>Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - etiology</topic><topic>Dermatitis, Occupational - epidemiology</topic><topic>Dermatitis, Occupational - etiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Foot Dermatoses - chemically induced</topic><topic>Foot Dermatoses - epidemiology</topic><topic>Formaldehyde</topic><topic>Germany - epidemiology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Leather</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Manufactured Materials - adverse effects</topic><topic>mercaptobenzothiazole</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>patch testing</topic><topic>Patch Tests</topic><topic>Potassium dichromate</topic><topic>p‐tert‐butylphenol formaldehyde resin</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>shoe dermatitis</topic><topic>Shoes - adverse effects</topic><topic>Switzerland - epidemiology</topic><topic>Tanning</topic><topic>Textiles - adverse effects</topic><topic>Tricresyl phosphate</topic><topic>Urea</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Traidl, Stephan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Werfel, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ruëff, Franziska</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simon, Dagmar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lang, Claudia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geier, Johannes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>IVDK</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>for the IVDK</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Contact dermatitis</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Traidl, Stephan</au><au>Werfel, Thomas</au><au>Ruëff, Franziska</au><au>Simon, Dagmar</au><au>Lang, Claudia</au><au>Geier, Johannes</au><aucorp>IVDK</aucorp><aucorp>for the IVDK</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Patch test results in patients with suspected contact allergy to shoes: Retrospective IVDK data analysis 2009–2018</atitle><jtitle>Contact dermatitis</jtitle><addtitle>Contact Dermatitis</addtitle><date>2021-09</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>85</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>297</spage><epage>306</epage><pages>297-306</pages><issn>0105-1873</issn><eissn>1600-0536</eissn><abstract>Background Allergic contact dermatitis caused by shoes is common and new relevant allergens have been identified. Objectives To investigate the pattern of type IV sensitization in patients with suspected allergic contact dermatitis of the feet related to shoes as a presumed culprit trigger. Methods Retrospective analysis of data of the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 2009‐2018. Results Six hundred twenty‐five patients with presumed shoe dermatitis were identified in a cohort of 119 417 patients. Compared to patients with suspected contact sensitization from other allergen sources (n = 118 792), study group patients were more frequently sensitized to potassium dichromate (10.8% vs 3.5%), colophony (7.2% vs 3.7%), mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT; 4.0% vs 0.6%), mercapto mix (4.6% vs 0.6%), and p‐tert‐butylphenol formaldehyde resin (1.6% vs 0.5%). Sensitizations to urea formaldehyde resin, melamine formaldehyde resin, glutaraldehyde, tricresyl phosphate, and phenyl glycidylether were rare. Moreover, reactions to compounds in the leather or textile dyes test series were scarce. Conclusion A distinct sensitization pattern was observed in patients with suspected allergy to shoe materials. Although substances with low sensitization rates should be removed from the leather and shoe patch test series, novel potential allergens should be added. Patients with suspected shoe dermatitis were more frequently sensitized to potassium dichromate, colophony, mercaptobenzothiazole (MBT), mercaptomix, and p‐tertbutylphenol formaldehyde resin (PTBP‐FR). Sensitizations to urea formaldehyde resin, melamine formaldehyde resin, glutaraldehyde, tricresyl phosphate, and phenyl glycidylether were rare. Patch test recommendations for patients with shoe dermatitis should be revised on the basis of this data and recent publications.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>33882155</pmid><doi>10.1111/cod.13868</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8965-9407</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5047-8948</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4806-599X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0105-1873
ispartof Contact dermatitis, 2021-09, Vol.85 (3), p.297-306
issn 0105-1873
1600-0536
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2516843224
source MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Age Distribution
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Allergens
Allergens - adverse effects
Allergies
Austria - epidemiology
Child
contact allergy
Contact dermatitis
Dermatitis
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - epidemiology
Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - etiology
Dermatitis, Occupational - epidemiology
Dermatitis, Occupational - etiology
Female
Foot Dermatoses - chemically induced
Foot Dermatoses - epidemiology
Formaldehyde
Germany - epidemiology
Humans
Leather
Male
Manufactured Materials - adverse effects
mercaptobenzothiazole
Middle Aged
patch testing
Patch Tests
Potassium dichromate
p‐tert‐butylphenol formaldehyde resin
Retrospective Studies
shoe dermatitis
Shoes - adverse effects
Switzerland - epidemiology
Tanning
Textiles - adverse effects
Tricresyl phosphate
Urea
Young Adult
title Patch test results in patients with suspected contact allergy to shoes: Retrospective IVDK data analysis 2009–2018
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T21%3A13%3A35IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Patch%20test%20results%20in%20patients%20with%20suspected%20contact%20allergy%20to%20shoes:%20Retrospective%20IVDK%20data%20analysis%202009%E2%80%932018&rft.jtitle=Contact%20dermatitis&rft.au=Traidl,%20Stephan&rft.aucorp=IVDK&rft.date=2021-09&rft.volume=85&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=297&rft.epage=306&rft.pages=297-306&rft.issn=0105-1873&rft.eissn=1600-0536&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/cod.13868&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2560568603%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2560568603&rft_id=info:pmid/33882155&rfr_iscdi=true