ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Determining the ability to differentiate results between independent sun protection factor tests using the ISO24444 method.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The variability of in vivo sunscreen sun protection factor values.International journal of cosmetic science · 2025Article
- Are in-market control systems for sunscreens adequate for consumer protection? A review of the legal framework regulating sun protection factor labels in Europe.BMJ public health · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The sun protection factor has nowadays become a familiar metric to understand sunscreen effectiveness. This value is displayed on the label of sunscreens and it is established by translating the results obtained from standardized testing methods to regulatory labeling criteria. The ISO24444, a widely accepted method to measure the sun protection factor, is designed to determine the validity of a single test, but it lacks criteria to compare results and many regulators only endorse the method as a valid means to label sunscreens. This supposes a challenge for manufacturers and regulators routinely using the method to take decisions on product labeling when confronted with disparate results for the same product. Methods: Analytical review of the statistical criteria used by the method to determine test validity. Results: For the same product, results from independent tests (of 10 subjects each) separated less than ×1.73 can be considered as the same from the point of view of compliance to the standard. Conclusion: This range of sun protection factor values far exceeds the ranges for labeling and categorizing sunscreens as per current regulations and thus opens the possibility that sunscreens are unknowingly mislabeled. These findings can be summarized in a "discriminability map" to assist comparing results from different tests and to better inform the labeling of sunscreen products and thus increase confidence to prescribers and consumers.
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.