ArticleContact dermatitis2026
Results of GC-MS Analyses of 40 Extracts of Diabetes Devices.
Article in Contact dermatitis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Parade of Persistent and Emerging Contact Allergens - A Clinical Update.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2026Review
- Results of GC-MS Analyses of 40 Extracts of Diabetes Devices.Contact dermatitis · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiagnostic patch testing in patients with suspected allergic Contact Dermatitis from glucose sensors, insulin pumps, and infusion sets is seriously hampered by a lack of information on the chemical composition of these diabetes devices.
objectivesTo identify the chemicals present in diabetes devices. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty acetone extracts of 27 devices (10 sensors, 3 patch pumps, 12 infusion sets and 2 single adhesives) were investigated by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry.
resultsTwo hundred eighty four individual chemicals were identified. All 40 extracts contained one or more chemicals that were previously identified as allergens in diabetes devices causing allergic Contact Dermatitis. Fourteen of 27 devices (52%) contained one or more acrylates, 8 (30%) colophonium derivatives, all 27 (100%) one or two phenolic allergens (2,4-di-tert-butylphenol, p-tert-butylphenol, butylated hydroxytoluene), and 9 (33%) 1-hydroxycyclohexyl phenyl ketone. None of the other chemicals were well-known haptens, with the exception of bisphenol A, which was present in half of the extracts, in some cases in very high concentrations.
conclusionsAll products investigated contained chemicals already known to be sensitizers in diabetes devices. The data can help determine the relevance of positive patch tests, facilitate targeted patch testing with potential allergens and aid in advising safer alternatives for sensitized patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.