Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38150300›Full record

ArticleACS applied bio materials2024

Evaluating the Irritant Factors of Silicone and Hydrocolloid Skin Contact Adhesives Using Trans-Epidermal Water Loss, Protein Stripping, Erythema, and Ease of Removal.

Edward Dyson, Stephen Sikkink, Davide Nocita, Peter Twigg, Gill Westgate, Thomas Swift

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ACS applied bio materials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Design, Construction, and Application of Implantable Fiber Biosensors.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Seeing beyond the obvious: pragmatic skin care guidance for infants 22-24 weeks gestational age.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Edward DysonSchool of Chemistry and Biosciences, University of Bradford, Bradford BD7 1DP, U.K.
Stephen SikkinkSchool of Chemistry and Biosciences, University of Bradford, Bradford BD7 1DP, U.K.
Davide NocitaFaculty of Engineering and Informatics, University of Bradford, Bradford BD7 1DP, U.K.ORCID 0000-0002-0237-9881
Peter TwiggFaculty of Engineering and Informatics, University of Bradford, Bradford BD7 1DP, U.K.
Gill WestgateSchool of Chemistry and Biosciences, University of Bradford, Bradford BD7 1DP, U.K.
Thomas SwiftSchool of Chemistry and Biosciences, University of Bradford, Bradford BD7 1DP, U.K.ORCID 0000-0002-8616-8458
University of Bradford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A composite silicone skin adhesive material was designed to improve its water vapor permeability to offer advantages to wearer comfort compared to existing skin adhesive dressings available (including perforated silicone and hydrocolloid products). The chemical and mechanical properties of this novel dressing were analyzed to show that it has a high creep compliance, offering anisotropic elasticity that is likely to place less stress on the skin. A participant study was carried out in which 31 participants wore a novel silicone skin adhesive (Sil2) and a hydrocolloid competitor and were monitored for physiological response to the dressings. Trans-epidermal water loss (TEWL) was measured pre- and postwear to determine impairment of skin barrier function. Sil2 exhibited a higher vapor permeability than the hydrocolloid dressings during wear. Peel strength measurements and dye counter staining of the removed dressings showed that the hydrocolloid had a higher adhesion to the participants' skin, resulting in a greater removal of proteins from the stratum corneum and a higher pain rating from participants on removal. Once the dressings were removed, TEWL of the participants skin beneath the Sil2 was close to normal in comparison to the hydrocolloid dressings that showed an increase in skin TEWL, indicating that the skin had been highly occluded. Analysis of the skin immediately after removal showed a higher incidence of erythema following application of hydrocolloid dressings (>60%) compared to Sil2, (<30%). In summary, this modified silicone formulation demonstrates superior skin protection properties compared to hydrocolloid dressings and is more suitable for use as a skin adhesive.

Indexed as

AdhesivesIrritantsBandages, HydrocolloidColloidsErythemaHumansSiliconesAdhesivesColloidsIrritantsSiliconesadhesivepeel strengthsiliconeskin contactTEWLvapor permeability

Identifiers

PMID38150300
PMCPMC10792606
OpenAlexW4390265336

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.