ArticleDermatology and therapy2019
New Methodology to Evaluate Sunscreens Under Outdoor Conditions: A Double-Blind, Randomized Intra-Individual Clinical Study of a Water-Based Broad-Spectrum SPF50+ Versus SPF15 (P3) and SPF50.
Article in Dermatology and therapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spectral Transmittance Analysis of Different Sunscreens Used in Daylight Photodynamic Therapy.Photodermatology, photoimmunology & photomedicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of a Sunscreen Product Compared with Reference Standards P3, P5 and P8 in Outdoor Conditions: a Randomized, Double-Blinded, Intra-individual Study in Healthy Subjects.Dermatology and therapy · 2022Article
- [Characterization of sun protection performance: Quo vadis?]Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2022Review
- Outdoor sunscreen testing with high-intensity solar exposure in a Chinese and Caucasian population.Photodermatology, photoimmunology & photomedicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study explored a new method to test sunscreens in outdoor conditions (very high to extreme ultraviolet [UV] radiation) approximating real-life solar exposure while maintaining scientific standards and acceptable conditions, and assessed the efficacy of a water-based sun-protection factor (SPF) 50+ versus a reference SPF15 and two comparator SPF50+ products.
methodsThirty-five subjects underwent testing in summertime Mauritius. In each subject, five test areas were marked on the back. One area was left unprotected, and four sunscreens were applied to the others: investigational product (IP), SPF15 (ISO 24444:2010 reference standard P3), and two marketed SPF50+ controls. Subjects spent 1-2 h (depending on skin type) in the sun. After 24 h, erythema was assessed by clinical scoring (0-5) and colorimetry (a*, L*, and ITA). Secondary endpoints were correlation between clinical and colorimetry assessment, product tolerability, and total UV radiation received.
resultsAll subjects were exposed to a very high UV index (≥ 8) and 30/35 were exposed to an extreme UV index (≥ 11). The IP showed statistically significant differences in clinical erythema scoring compared with unprotected skin and SPF15, but not with SPF50+ controls. On colorimetry, differences in a* (redness) and L* (lightness) reached statistical significance for the IP vs SPF15 but not vs SPF50+ controls. Clinical and instrumental erythema assessment correlated strongly (Spearman's rho 0.663). No tolerability issues were reported.
conclusionThis exploratory study confirmed the ability of this outdoor model to discriminate sunscreens with different SPF using clinical evaluation as an objective measure. The water-based sunscreen maintained its efficacy in outdoor conditions of very high to extreme UV radiation: it was superior to SPF15 and comparable to SPF50+ controls in preventing erythema. The method used represents an option for sunscreen efficacy comparison outside of the laboratory.
fundingIsdin.
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.