ArticlePhotodermatology, photoimmunology & photomedicine2022
Outdoor sunscreen testing with high-intensity solar exposure in a Chinese and Caucasian population.
Article in Photodermatology, photoimmunology & photomedicine, 2022. 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.
- Personalized Photoprotection: Expert Consensus and Recommendations From a Delphi Study Among Dermatologists.Photodermatology, photoimmunology & photomedicine · 2025Article
- Evaluation of a Sunscreen Product Compared with Reference Standards P3, P5 and P8 in Outdoor Conditions: a Randomized, Double-Blinded, Intra-individual Study in Healthy Subjects.Dermatology and therapy · 2022Article
- [Characterization of sun protection performance: Quo vadis?]Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2022Review
- Outdoor sunscreen testing with high-intensity solar exposure in a Chinese and Caucasian population.Photodermatology, photoimmunology & photomedicine · 2022Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, sunscreens' sun protection factor (SPF) and ultraviolet (UV) A protection are tested separately under indoor conditions, without considering external conditions that may affect performance. Studies are often conducted in Caucasian individuals; other racial groups may respond differently.
methodsAn outdoor, double-blind, intra-individual study was performed in 63 healthy Chinese and Caucasian volunteers in Singapore. Subjects underwent one outdoor sun exposure lasting 2-3 hours. ISO reference products P3 (SPF 15), P5 (SPF 30), and P8 (SPF 50+) applied at 2 mg/cm
resultsClinical erythema and pigmentation scores were statistically significantly different among the three sunscreens, with the highest SPF product providing the highest protection, confirming the discriminatory capacity of the model used. Colorimetric assessment correlated well with clinical evaluation.
conclusionThis study confirmed the feasibility of ranking sunscreens (at 2 mg/cm
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.