ArticlePharmaceutical research2020
Correlations Between Skin Barrier Integrity and Delivery of Hydrophilic Molecules in the Presence of Penetration Enhancers.
Article in Pharmaceutical research, 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Percutaneous extraction using sponge spicules for disease diagnosis and therapeutic drug monitoring.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development and evaluation of Sahasthara Thai medicine remedy in a film-forming spray for topical anti-inflammatory therapy.Research in pharmaceutical sciences · 2025Article
- New Horizons in Dermal and Transdermal Drug Delivery Systems.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Self-Assembly of Cellulose Nanocrystals and Organic Colored Pigments as Reinforcement Matrix of Lipstick for Enhancing SPF.Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2022Article
- Article
- Formulation-based approaches for dermal delivery of vaccines and therapeutic nucleic acids: Recent advances and future perspectives.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe investigated the potential correlations between skin barrier integrity and hydrophilic drugs distribution in skin in the presence of different types of penetration enhancers (PEs) and their combinations.
methodsWe measured skin conductivity to evaluate skin barrier integrity before and after the topical application of different chemical PEs, physical PE, peptide PE and their combinations in vitro. We also investigated their effect on the skin distribution profiles of two hydrophilic model drugs, Fluorescein sodium (376 Da) and Fluorescein isothiocyanate-dextrans 10 (10 KDa).
resultsThe physical PE significantly increased the skin conductivity compared to all other PEs, while the peptide PE had no effect on it. The drug deposition in different skin layers was not only dependent on PE applied but also its own molecular weight. We further found two excellent correlations: one (R
conclusionsThe total skin absorption or the deposition in dermis and receptor of small hydrophilic drug in the presence of chemical and physical PEs and their combinations show a good correlation with skin barrier integrity. However, such correlations hold true neither for large hydrophilic drug nor for peptide PE. All good relationships found in this work will allow screening suitable PEs or combinations by measuring the skin conductivity induced by corresponding PEs. Graphical Abstract The total skin absorption of small hydrophilic drug shows a good correlation with skin barrier integrity in the presence of chemical and physical penetration enhancers and their combinations. However, such a correlation hold true neither for large hydrophilic drug nor for peptide penetration enhancer.
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.