ReviewDer Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete2022
[Characterization of sun protection performance: Quo vadis?]
Review in Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The task of the first sunscreens was to prevent the development of sunburn and, following the spirit of the 1950/1960s, to not impair the tanning of the skin. The need to quantify the protective performance soon arose. Originally with the help of natural-nowadays artificial-sunlight, a method was developed to determine a sun protection factor (SPF). It is formally defined as a ratio between minimum erythema-effective UV dose on sunscreen-protected skin and minimum erythema-effective UV dose on unprotected skin (ISO 24444:2019). Three observations question the suitability of the method. (1) Interlaboratory variability: Despite strict standardization, results of SPF determinations from different laboratories are subject to large variations. (2) Natural vs. artificial sunlight: The radiation spectrum of artificial sunlight differs from that of natural sunlight. SPFs determined with artificial sunlight (as depicted on all sunscreens currently on the market) are significantly too high compared to SPF determination with natural sunlight. (3) Erythema burden: When determining SPF, subjects are exposed to potentially harmful radiation. Against this background alternative methods-in vitro SPF, hybrid diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (HDRS) and in silico calculations-are presented. These have the potential to replace the current method. As an immediate measure, it is recommended to return to the comprehensible description of low, medium, high, and very high protection and in the future to take into account the spectrum of natural sunlight.
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.