ArticleJournal of cosmetic dermatology2020
Comparison of transepidermal water loss rates in subjects with skin patch test positive vs negative to skin care products.
Article in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- When Genes Meet Gels: Computational Immunogenetics of Dermal Fillers and Stratified Risk of Immune and Fibrotic Reactions across Compositions and Genotypes.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Physicochemical Characterization and Safety Assessment of Cosmetic Gels and Emulsions Containing Sand-Extraction Clays.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Article
- Decades of Scientific Data and Global Media Reporting on Complications in Non-surgical Aesthetic Treatments for a Transparent Safety Profile: Kissing Snow White Awake.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- The link between cutaneous inflammation and cognitive impairment.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2022Review
- Review
- Prevalence and Severity of Dermatological Condition-Associated Skin Pain in the Chinese.Journal of pain research · 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
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdverse cutaneous reactions to skin care products (SCP) are becoming increasingly common and may be indicative of defective permeability barrier function.
aimTo determine the differences in transepidermal water loss rates (TEWL) between skin patch positive vs negative to skin care products in normal Chinese females.
methodsSkin patch test reactions to nine skin care products were assessed in 65 normal Chinese females. Correlations of cutaneous reactions to a panel of nine foreign and domestic SCP with permeability barrier function and stratum corneum (SC) hydration levels were analyzed.
resultsOut of 65 subjects, 24 (37%) displayed positive reactions to one or more SCP. However, the occurrence of positive reactions to patch tests did not correlate with either transepidermal water loss rates or SC hydration levels.
conclusionsThough a substantial proportion of normal females display adverse reactions to SCP, this problem cannot be attributed to differences in the qualities of their epidermal permeability barriers, and therefore, these reactions more likely reflect the potential adverse events of the SCP themselves. However, further studies in large cohort of both males and females would be helpful to ascertain whether TEWL levels can predict cutaneous reactions to SCP.
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.