ArticleCureus2024
Evaluation of Ultraviolet Protection Claims Made by Umbrella Brands.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe objective of this study was to review and evaluate umbrellas sold in the United States for sun protection. Seeking shade is among the current recommendations for protection against ultraviolet (UV) radiation, often through the use of handheld umbrellas (HU), beach umbrellas (BU), and patio umbrellas (PU). The study aims to assess the validity of UV protection factor (UPF) claims made by manufacturers and to determine if there is sufficient testing data to support these claims.
methodsTo evaluate consumer online shopping behavior for umbrellas for use as shade in the sun, keywords and keyword phrases were identified followed by Google (Google LLC, Mountain View, California, United States) and Amazon (Amazon.com, Inc., Seattle, Washington, United States) searches to determine brands and products retrieved. The top 13 brands and corresponding products were evaluated for their UV protection claims and validation of these claims. Results: Of the 37 products including HU, BU, and PU, it was found that umbrellas for sun protection are more likely to be marketed with a UPF claim despite a 95% CI for a validated UPF claim of 2-10% with the breakdown for HU as (0%, 50%), BU (14.3%, 87.5%), and PU (0%, 0%). All UPF claims that were validated were only based on the new unused product and not after being subjected to wear and tear.
conclusionsThe marketing of umbrellas for use in the sun as a shade structure favors the use of UPF claims despite the absence of a standardized definition. The lack of validation for these claims along with inherent limitations of UV protection offered by shade structures suggests the UPF claim may be more of a promotional tactic than a reliable indicator of the UV protection provided. This underscores the need to continue recommending other sun-protective behaviors, such as wearing sunscreen and sun-protective clothing, even while using umbrellas.
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.