Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35220912›Full record

ReviewJournal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews2022

The wash-in effect and its significance for mass casualty decontamination.

Thomas James, Lydia Izon-Cooper, Samuel Collins, Haydn Cole, Tim Marczylo

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. An evaluation of a canine dry wipe decontamination kit.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution.

Thomas JamesRadiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, UK Health Security Agency, Chilton, UK.
Lydia Izon-CooperRadiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, UK Health Security Agency, Chilton, UK.
Samuel CollinsRadiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, UK Health Security Agency, Chilton, UK.
Haydn ColeRadiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, UK Health Security Agency, Chilton, UK.
Tim MarczyloRadiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, UK Health Security Agency, Chilton, UK.
UK Health Security Agency

Funding

Department of Health NIHR130440
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decontamination of skin by washing may increase dermal absorption, a phenomenon known as the wash-in effect. The wash-in effect is frequently discussed in studies investigating casualty decontamination where potentially life-saving interventions may enhance the dermal penetration of toxic chemicals, leading to an increase in incidence of morbidity and rates of mortality. However, the wash-in effect is seldom investigated within the context of mass casualty decontamination and real-life consequences are therefore poorly understood. This paper reviews the existing literature on the wash-in effect to highlight the proposed mechanisms for enhanced absorption and evaluate the wash-in effect within the context of mass casualty chemical decontamination.

Indexed as

Mass Casualty IncidentsDecontaminationSkincasualty decontaminationchemicalEmergency responseskin penetrationwash-in effect

Identifiers

PMID35220912
PMCPMC8903816
OpenAlexW4214556694

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.