ReviewInternational journal of dermatology2025
Clinical Benefits of Basic Emollient Therapy for the Management of Patients With Xerosis Cutis.
Review in International journal of dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of a Topical Formulation on Skin Hydration and Barrier Function in Individuals With Xerosis: A 28-Day Randomized, Split-Leg, Untreated-Controlled Trial.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Trial
- Cutaneous Adverse Events of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Endocrine Tumors: Clinical Features, Mechanisms, and Management Strategies.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Basic Emollients for Xerosis Cutis in Atopic Dermatitis: A Review of Clinical Studies.International journal of dermatology · 2025Review
- Clinical Benefits of Basic Emollient Therapy for the Management of Patients With Xerosis Cutis.International journal of dermatology · 2025Review
- Optimization of Basic Emollient Therapy for the Management of Xerosis Cutis.International journal of dermatology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Xerosis cutis refers to dry skin that may be caused or exacerbated by external triggers (e.g., cold weather), endogenous factors (e.g., aging), or present as a symptom of other diseases (e.g., atopic dermatitis). Emollients are topical products formulated to rehydrate and restore the barrier function of the skin and are consistently recommended for the management of xerosis cutis and related diseases. Following the previous articles in this supplement, the present article aims to review the wider spectrum of clinical benefits associated with emollient therapy for xerosis cutis and diseases associated with dry skin. In clinical studies, the biophysical effects of emollients are often demonstrated using instrumental measures of skin hydration and barrier function, as well as clinical scoring systems that grade xerosis severity. In addition to these objective measures, the effectiveness of emollients has also been assessed by evaluating changes in subjective symptoms and patient-reported quality of life. Other reported benefits of emollient therapy for atopic dermatitis include delaying and preventing flares and reducing topical corticosteroid use. Although the current body of literature demonstrates the wide range of clinical benefits of emollient therapy for xerosis cutis, they also highlight a high degree of heterogeneity across clinical studies, a need for consensus outcome measures that facilitate direct comparisons between formulations, and a need to establish treatment targets for emollient therapy in clinical practice. Nevertheless, available evidence indicates that emollients demonstrate a favorable risk-benefit profile overall and should continue to be the mainstay of basic therapy for people with xerosis cutis and diseases associated with dry skin.
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.