Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40637051›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of cosmetic science2025

The variability of in vivo sunscreen sun protection factor values.

Curtis Cole, Bertrand Colson, Steffen Uhlig

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of cosmetic science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A proposal for simplifying the labelling of sunscreens.International journal of cosmetic science · 2026
    Article
  2. What's New in Photoprotection?American journal of clinical dermatology · 2026
    Review
  3. Natural photoprotection under scrutiny: an in vitro evaluation.Photochemical & photobiological sciences : Official journal of the European Photochemistry Association and the European Society for Photobiology · 2026
    Article
  4. The variability of in vivo sunscreen sun protection factor values.International journal of cosmetic science · 2025
    Article
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

3 authors.

Curtis ColeSun & Skin Consulting LLC, New Holland, New Holland, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2519-3198
Bertrand ColsonQuoData GmbH, Dresden, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4743-1150
Steffen UhligQuoData GmbH, Dresden, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDetermination of the sunburn protection provided by a sunscreen product is required globally for sales of these products. Over the past 80 years, many aspects of determining the protection 'factor' have evolved and been modified, with varying levels of impact on the sunburn protection factor (SPF) value. In order to compare new non-invasive and in vitro methods against traditional SPF test protocols, a large, multi-center clinical trial was conducted to establish the level of equivalence of these new methods with the current codified testing standard ISO24444 ([1]: Cosmetics - sun protection methods - in vivo determination of the sun protection factor (SPF), 2019). This report reports the variability found in the in vivo determination of SPF values.

methodsThirty-two products of varying levels of sunburn and UVA protection, in a variety of formulation vehicles and ultraviolet (UV) filter combinations and concentrations, were coded and sent to pre-qualified in vivo SPF testing laboratories. The products were divided into eight product groups (four products per product group). For each product group, samples were sent to four laboratories (across product groups, a total of 12 laboratories participated). Precision and trueness estimates were calculated separately for each product group. 'Expected' SPF values were not provided to the test laboratories. However, laboratories were informed as to whether the 'true' SPF was less than or greater than 25.

resultsInterlaboratory variability for samples was proportional to the SPF of the products, with high SPF products having higher variability. Intra-laboratory variability (repeatability) was much lower than the interlaboratory variability.

conclusionsThis study highlights the fact that the interlaboratory variability of SPF results is considerable and is likely greater than expected by the public and regulatory bodies.

Indexed as

Sun Protection FactorSunscreening AgentsHumansUltraviolet RaysSunscreening Agents

Identifiers

PMID40637051
PMCPMC12400021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.