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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Contact dermatitis 2021-09, Vol.85 (3), p.297-306 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
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 & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2021 The Authors. Contact Dermatitis published by John Wiley & 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 |