ArticlePostepy dermatologii i alergologii2020
Differences in subjective and objective evaluation of hyperhidrosis. Study among medical students.
Article in Postepy dermatologii i alergologii, 2020. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Selective TScientific reports · 2021Trial
- Self-Reported Prevalence and Awareness of Hyperhidrosis Among Medical Students at the Gulf Medical University, UAE.Cureus · 2026Article
- The use of an objective method (continuous exosomatic electrodermal activity without external stimuli) to evaluate patients with hyperhidrosis undergoing video-assisted sympathectomy.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2026Article
- Continuous evaluation of exosomatic electrodermal activity in patients with primary palmoplantar hyperhidrosis.Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHyperhidrosis is a condition that significantly impairs patients' quality of life. Qualification for treatment in most cases is based only on subjective evaluation of symptoms without objective confirmation.
aimTo evaluate the differences between subjective and objective evaluation of sweating among medical students. MATERIAL AND
methodsThere were 179 participants involved in the study. Subjective evaluation of sweating was conducted using the Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Scale and Numeric Rating Scale in 4 body areas: the face, palms, armpits and abdomino-lumbar area. Objective evaluation of sweating was performed using gravimetry.
resultsThe prevalence of hyperhidrosis in gravimetric measures was 1.12%. In subjective evaluation hyperhidrosis (HDSS 3 or 4) was present in 11.17% of cases. There was no significant difference in subjective evaluation of hyperhidrosis between men and women (15% vs. 9.24%;
conclusionsThere is a discrepancy between subjective and objective methods of evaluating sweating.
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.