SynthesisJournal of the American Academy of Dermatology2017
Reference values for skin microanatomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of ex vivo studies.
Synthesis in Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of a basic skin care product on the structural strength of the dermo-epidermal junction: An exploratory, randomised, controlled split-body trial.International wound journal · 2022Trial
- Cutaneous Adnexal Tumours in an Eastern European Cohort: Clinicopathological Spectrum and Rare Malignant Lesions.Cancers · 2026Article
- Localization of Lesions in Autoimmune Blistering Diseases Is Independent of Site-Specific Target Antigen Expression.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Expert Consensus on Big Data Collection of Skin and Appendage Disease Phenotypes in Chinese.Phenomics (Cham, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Estimating the reference range from a meta-analysis.Research synthesis methods · 2021Article
- Assessing the compliance of systematic review articles published in leading dermatology journals with the PRISMA statement guidelines: A systematic review.JAAD international · 2020Review
- Variability of Skin Pharmacokinetic Data: Insights from a Topical Bioequivalence Study Using Dermal Open Flow Microperfusion.Pharmaceutical research · 2020Article
- Induction of a Th17 Phenotype in Human Skin-A Mimic of Dermal Inflammatory Diseases.Methods and protocols · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFew studies have characterized reference values of normal human skin microanatomy parameters.
objectiveTo quantify histologic measurements of epidermal thickness, melanocyte density, hair follicle density, and eccrine gland density as a function of age and anatomic site.
methodWe searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases for articles published through May 25, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened 2016 articles; 327 relevant articles and 151 additional articles found via forward or reference citations underwent full-text review by 1 of 4 reviewers for relevance, data extraction, and critical appraisal. Weighted averages, meta-analysis, and meta-regression were used in statistical analysis.
resultsA total of 56 articles were included; when all anatomic locations were used, the overall estimates for epidermal thickness, melanocyte density, hair follicle density, and eccrine gland density were 99.75 μm (95% confidence interval [CI], 83.25-116.25), 955.05 cells/mm LIMITATIONS: There was significant data heterogeneity across studies, possibly because of differences in histological techniques and absence of standardized microanatomy definitions.
conclusionsWe established summary estimates for normal human skin microanatomy parameters.
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.