Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35437865›Full record

ArticlePhotodermatology, photoimmunology & photomedicine2022

Measurements of illuminance in simulated daylight photodynamic therapy.

Alexandra Sjöholm, Magdalena Claeson, John Paoli

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Simulated daylight versus conventional PDT for mild to moderate actinic keratoses: A randomized controlled trial.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026
    Trial
  2. Simulated daylight vs. conventional PDT for clinical superficial BCC: A randomized controlled trial.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2025
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Measurements of illuminance in simulated daylight photodynamic therapy.Photodermatology, photoimmunology & photomedicine · 2022
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alexandra SjöholmDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Magdalena ClaesonDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
John PaoliDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
University of Gothenburg · SESahlgrenska University Hospital · SE

Funding

ALF-agreementGothenburg Society of Medicine SLS-687351Hudfonden 2665Sahlgrenska University Hospital FoundationSahlgrenska University Hospitals Research FoundationsSvenska LäkaresällskapetSvenska Sällskapet för Medicinsk ForskningSwedish government ALFGBG-728261Swedish Society for Medical Research P16-0020Swedish Society of Medicine SLS-685281The gothenburg Society of Medicine
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSimulated daylight photodynamic therapy (SDL-PDT) is a new treatment alternative for actinic keratosis. The aim of this study was to show how the illuminance that reaches the target skin area during SDL-PDT depends on the spatial positioning of the patient.

methodsIn this technical validation study, illuminance from the SDL-PDT system IndoorLux© was measured at different angles, directions, and distances from the light sources corresponding to potential target skin areas. Using two different photometers, data from 63 measuring points at seven specific distances from the ceiling were collected at 0°, 45°, and 90° angles, respectively. Illuminance levels ≥12,000 lux were regarded as adequate. Hotspots were defined as adequate measurements in all directions at a specific measuring point at distances of 1.3, 1.5, and 1.8 m from the light sources (i.e., the most common patient treatment positions).

resultsAdequate illuminance levels were more common with photometer 1 (73%) than photometer 2 (57%). Almost all illuminance levels were adequate at a 0° angle with both photometers. Adequate illuminance levels were observed at 82-93% of the measuring points at a 45° angle and 22-47% at a 90° angle. Hotspots were registered with both photometers at all measuring points at 0°; 59-79% of the measuring points at 45°; and 0-21% at 90°.

conclusionPatient positioning is important during SDL-PDT. Adequate illuminance is achieved if target skin areas are positioned at 0°-45° angles relative to the light sources, but not at 90° angles.

Indexed as

Keratosis, ActinicPhotochemotherapyAminolevulinic AcidHumansPhotosensitizing AgentsTreatment OutcomeAminolevulinic AcidPhotosensitizing Agentsactinic keratosisbasal cell carcinomaBowen's diseaseilluminancekeratinocyte cancerphotodynamic therapysimulated daylight photodynamic therapy

Identifiers

PMID35437865
PMCPMC9790370
OpenAlexW4224280034

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.