Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38026365›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2023

Recalls of tattoo and permanent makeup inks in the United States and a follow-up microbiological survey of inks with a previous recall history.

Sunghyun Yoon, Sandeep Kondakala, Mi Sun Moon, Mei-Chiung J Huang, Goran Periz, Steven L Foley, Ohgew Kweon, Seong-Jae Kim

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sunghyun Yoon *Division of Microbiology, National Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR, United States.
Sandeep Kondakala *Division of Microbiology, National Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR, United States.
Mi Sun MoonOffice of Cosmetics and Colors, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, College Park, MD, United States.
Mei-Chiung J HuangOffice of Cosmetics and Colors, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, College Park, MD, United States.
Goran PerizOffice of Cosmetics and Colors, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, College Park, MD, United States.
Steven L FoleyDivision of Microbiology, National Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR, United States.
Ohgew KweonDivision of Microbiology, National Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR, United States.
Seong-Jae KimDivision of Microbiology, National Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR, United States.
National Center for Toxicological Research · USUnited States Food and Drug Administration · USCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, we collected voluntary recall records of tattoo and permanent makeup ink from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) Enforcement Report Database. The recall records contain information, such as recall date, manufacturer, ink color, reason for recall, and the microorganisms detected from the ink samples. Between 2003 and 2021, a total of 15 voluntary tattoo ink recalls occurred in the U.S. market, involving over 200 tattoo inks marketed by 13 manufacturers and one distributor. Fourteen recalls were due to microbial contamination, and one recall was due to allergic reaction. As follow-up, a microbiological survey of 28 tattoo inks of new batches from seven manufacturers having products that were previously recalled was conducted. Aerobic plate count (APC) and enrichment culture methods based on the FDA's Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM) were used to detect microbial contamination. The results revealed that six out of 28 tattoo inks were contaminated with bacteria and were produced by two manufacturers. The level of microbial contamination was less than 250 CFU/g in three of the tattoo inks and between 1 × 10

Indexed as

TattooingBacteriaFollow-Up StudiesInkSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Statesbacterial identificationmicrobial contaminationmicrobiological surveytattoo ink recallUS market

Identifiers

PMID38026365
PMCPMC10668429
OpenAlexW4388618831

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.