ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2013
Tolerance of skin care regimen in healthy, full-term neonates.
Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, 2013. 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.
- Emu oil-based lotion effects on neonatal skin barrier during transition from intrauterine to extrauterine life.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2017Article
- Recommendations from a European Roundtable Meeting on Best Practice Healthy Infant Skin Care.Pediatric dermatology · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the tolerance of a baby cleanser and lotion (both lightly fragranced) on healthy, full-term neonates. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-six infant-mother pairs were enrolled in a 6-week, nonrandomized, controlled-use study that took place in the routine setting of a pediatric clinic and mothers' homes. During study weeks 1 to 6, neonates were bathed by their mother with water and a test cleanser (JOHNSON'S® HEAD-TO-TOE® Baby Wash). During study weeks 1 to 3, mothers also applied test lotion (JOHNSON'S® Baby Lotion) to the babies' skin immediately after bathing and one to three times/day on bathing and non-bathing days. During study weeks 4 to 6, no lotion was applied. At baseline and weeks 3 and 6, the infants' pediatrician or mother or both performed visual skin assessments.
resultsTwenty-three infant-mother pairs completed the study. The mean age of neonates at enrolment was 17.4 days (range, 13-28 days). Pediatrician observations found no clinical signs of irritation, erythema, or dryness with any significant difference in scores of these parameters compared with baseline throughout the study. Assessment of skin softness, smoothness, dryness, and overall skin condition was very good at baseline and remained so with minimal changes throughout the study. Mothers reported improvements versus baseline (P ≤ 0.05) in overall skin appearance, moisturization, softness, and smoothness on the arms and legs at weeks 3 and 6. A total of four (15.4%) subjects experienced adverse events. For three of the subjects, the investigator suspected that the adverse events were unrelated to either of the test products. In one participant, the cause of the adverse event could not be determined.
conclusionThe use of a lightly fragranced nonstinging baby cleanser, with or without a lightly fragranced baby lotion, was well tolerated by newborns and resulted in observable skin benefits per the pediatricians' and mothers' assessment.
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.