ArticlePharmaceutics2022
Structural and Functional Analysis of Excised Skins and Human Reconstructed Epidermis with Confocal Raman Spectroscopy and in Microfluidic Diffusion Chambers.
Article in Pharmaceutics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improved Dual-Modality Bioequivalence Evaluation of Topical Formulations Within Human Skin Using Stimulated Raman Scattering Microscopy.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Surface Characterization of Skin Substitute Materials.Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI) · 2025Article
- Progress in Topical and Transdermal Drug Delivery Research-Focus on Nanoformulations.Pharmaceutics · 2024Review
- Optical Methods for Non-Invasive Determination of Skin Penetration: Current Trends, Advances, Possibilities, Prospects, and Translation into In Vivo Human Studies.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- Article
- Transdermal Delivery of α-Aminophosphonates as Semisolid Formulations-An In Vitro-Ex Vivo Study.Pharmaceutics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Several ex vivo and in vitro skin models are available in the toolbox of dermatological and cosmetic research. Some of them are widely used in drug penetration testing. The excised skins show higher variability, while the in vitro skins provide more reproducible data. The aim of the current study was to compare the chemical composition of different skin models (excised rat skin, excised human skin and human-reconstructed epidermis) by measurement of ceramides, cholesterol, lactate, urea, protein and water at different depths of the tissues. The second goal was to compile a testing system, which includes a skin-on-a-chip diffusion setup and a confocal Raman spectroscopy for testing drug diffusion across the skin barrier and accumulation in the tissue models. A hydrophilic drug caffeine and the P-glycoprotein substrate quinidine were used in the study as topical cream formulations. The results indicate that although the transdermal diffusion of quinidine is lower, the skin accumulation was comparable for the two drugs. The various skin models showed different chemical compositions. The human skin was abundant in ceramides and cholesterol, while the reconstructed skin contained less water and more urea and protein. Based on these results, it can be concluded that skin-on-a-chip and confocal Raman microspectroscopy are suitable for testing drug penetration and distribution at different skin layers within an exposition window. Furthermore, obese human skin should be treated with caution for skin absorption testing due to its unbalanced composition.
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.