ArticleDermatopathology (Basel, Switzerland)
Morphological Analysis of Dermatoporosis by in vivo Reflectance Confocal Microscopy and Ultrasonography.
Article in Dermatopathology (Basel, Switzerland). 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Calcium Hydroxylapatite-Carboxymethylcellulose as a Treatment for Forearm Dermatoporosis: A Prospective, Delayed-Start, Contralateral Case Series.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Article
- [Skin aging and dermatoporosis-the chronic skin fragility syndrome].Dermatologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDermatoporosis is defined as a chronic cutaneous fragility and insufficiency syndrome. It results from chronological aging, long-term and unprotected sun exposure, genetic factors, or the chronic use of topical and systemic corticosteroids. There is currently a lack of noninvasive tools for the evaluation and quantification of dermatoporosis.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to define the dermal-epidermal modifications which characterize dermatoporosis using noninvasive methods such as in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) and ultrasound (US). SUBJECTS AND
methodsSeventeen patients with stage I dermatoporosis and 14 healthy volunteers were included in the study. The posterior surface of the right forearm was analyzed in all subjects, and stellate pseudoscars and senile purpura in patients with dermatoporosis were analyzed when possible. We used a commercially available reflectance confocal microscope and measured different histometric parameters (thickness of the epidermis and its different layers, cellular architecture, aspect of the dermal-epidermal junction and the dermis). We also used a commercially available US skin system to define the dermal-epidermal thickness (DET) in all subjects.
resultsThe DET measured with the US skin system was significantly different between the two groups: mean value 1.19 mm (volunteers group) versus 0.81 mm (patient group). The significant differences measured with RCM were (1) epidermal thickness, (2) number of dermal papillae, and (3) thickness of solar elastosis. Stellate pseudoscars are also characterized by a modified dermis, with a linear organization of the collagen bundles.
conclusionUS and in vivo RCM are useful tools for the diagnosis of dermatoporosis. Dermal-epidermal atrophy, reduction of dermal papillae/area, and the thickness of dermal elastosis seem to be the major histometric parameters which characterize dermatoporosis.
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.