ArticleAnnals of dermatology2024
Skin Hydration Measurement: Comparison Between Devices and Clinical Evaluations.
Article in Annals of dermatology, 2024. 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.
- An Injectable Biopolymer Hydrogel Complex (PN/HA/B3) for Facial Skin Redensification and General Rejuvenation: Clinical Report on Device Safety and Efficacy.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Effects of Sphingomyelin on Skin Conditions in Healthy Adults: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.Cureus · 2026Article
- Comparative Analyses of Cyanoacrylates for Barrier Protection and Incontinence-Related Wash-Off Resistance.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Efficacy of an Oral Skincare Supplement on Skin Aging: A 12-Week Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.Dermatology and therapy · 2025Article
- Transforming Skin Quality Evaluation With AI: From Subjective Grading to Data-Driven Precision.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Review
- New Frontiers of Non-Invasive Detection in Scalp and Hair Diseases: A Review of the Application of Novel Detection Techniques.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)Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe need for an objective method for measuring skin hydration levels is becoming increasingly important. Various devices with different measuring principles for assessing skin hydration have been developed and are widely used.
objectiveThis study aimed to investigate the reproducibility and correlation between clinical evaluation and skin hydration measurement devices that are the most widely used in the field.
methodsA prospective comparative clinical trial was conducted on 184 healthy volunteers. Skin hydration levels were measured using the Corneometer (CM820) and hydration probe (HP: DermaLab Combo) at 3 points: the ventral forearm, the dorsal forearm, and the shin. We used the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to evaluate the reproducibility and Pearson's correlation coefficient (PCC) to evaluate the correlation of each measurement. Simple linear regression was used to analyze the Corneometer and HP skin hydration value changes according to changes in xerosis severity scale (XSS) values, which were evaluated by clinicians.
resultsBoth the Corneometer and HP showed significant, excellent reproducibility (ICC for Corneometer: 0.954-0.971, ICC for HP: 0.980-0.986) and significant high positive correlations (PCC: 0.708-0.737) regardless of the measurement site. Both devices showed negative regression coefficients in all measurement sites in XSS analysis, but this was not statistically significant.
conclusionThe Corneometer and HP were both accurate and objective skin hydration measuring devices, regardless of the measurement site. Using reliable and objective devices such as the Corneometer or HP can aid in understanding an individual's skin condition and making more informed decisions for skin care.
trial registrationClinical Research Information Service Identifier: KCT0005146.
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.