ReviewInternational archives of occupational and environmental health2003
Skin protection and percutaneous absorption of chemical hazards.
Review in International archives of occupational and environmental health, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of dermal exposure assessment in the US Environmental Protection Agency Toxic Substances Control Act risk evaluations of chemical manufacturing.Toxicology and industrial health · 2023Review
- Anti-Melanogenic Mechanism of Tetrahydrocurcumin and Enhancing Its Topical Delivery Efficacy Using a Lecithin-Based Nanoemulsion.Pharmaceutics · 2021Article
- Human exposure and mass balance distribution during procymidone application in horticultural greenhouses.Heliyon · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hazardous substances that penetrate the skin barrier may induce dermal irritation, inflammation or sensitisation, as well as systemically toxic effects. Air threshold limits are insufficient to prevent adverse health effects in the case of contact with substances with a high dermal absorption potential. Biological monitoring is a useful tool to quantify internal exposure of an individual and allows an assessment to be made of the dermal absorption pathway. Additionally, the efficacy of protective equipment can be proved. Standard gloves are ineffective to decrease dermal uptake. Various skin-care products include emulgators, which are used as penetration enhancers in transdermal therapeutic drugs. Hence, specific skin-care products potentially enhance dermal absorption of certain chemicals. On the other hand, the best protection from dermal absorption is the physiological skin barrier-the stratum corneum. Skin-care products that accelerate regeneration of the stratum corneum are obliged to have positive effects to prevent dermal absorption. With regard to the increasing number of occupational skin diseases and the large quantity of skin-care products that are used at workplaces it is essential that the mechanism of protection and efficacy be assessed. In the future, we require evidence-based prevention or evidence-based medicine that includes evidence-based prevention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.