Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31547141›Full record

ReviewPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland)2019

Measuring Daylight: A Review of Dosimetry in Daylight Photodynamic Therapy.

Paul O'Mahoney, Marina Khazova, Ewan Eadie, Sally Ibbotson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Photoprotection properties of clothing measured across ultraviolet and visible wavelengths.Photochemical & photobiological sciences : Official journal of the European Photochemistry Association and the European Society for Photobiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Observational
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Daylight-PDT: everything under the sun.Biochemical Society transactions · 2022
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Daylight Photodynamic Therapy: An Update.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Paul O'MahoneyPhotobiology Unit, NHS Tayside, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee DD1 9SY, UK. pzomahoney@dundee.ac.uk.
Marina KhazovaPublic Health England, Didcot OX11 0RQ, UK. marina.khazova@phe.gov.uk.
Ewan EadiePhotobiology Unit, NHS Tayside, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee DD1 9SY, UK. ewan.eadie@nhs.ne.
Sally IbbotsonPhotobiology Unit, NHS Tayside, Ninewells Hospital, Dundee DD1 9SY, UK. shibbotson@dundee.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Successful daylight photodynamic therapy (DPDT) relies on the interaction of light, photosensitisers and oxygen. Therefore, the 'dose' of light that a patient receives during treatment is a clinically relevant quantity, with a minimum dose for effective treatment recommended in the literature. However, there are many different light measurement methods used in the published literature, which may lead to confusion surrounding reliable and traceable dose measurement in DPDT, and what the most appropriate method of light measurement in DPDT might be. Furthermore, for the majority of practitioners who do not carry out any formal dosimetry and for the patients receiving DPDT, building confidence in the evidence supporting this important treatment option is of key importance. This review seeks to clarify the methodology of DPDT and discusses the literature relating to DPDT dosimetry.

Indexed as

actinic keratosisdaylightdosimetryphotodynamic therapysunscreen

Identifiers

PMID31547141
PMCPMC6958468

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.