ArticleJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
Effect of a Dihydroxyacetone-Based Camouflage Agent on Ultraviolet-Induced Erythema.
Article in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effect of a Dihydroxyacetone-Based Camouflage Agent on Ultraviolet-Induced Erythema.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVitiligo is an acquired, idiopathic skin disease of dyspigmentation, affecting approximately 0.5%-2% of the global population. However, it is not clear whether dihydroxyacetone (DHA)-based camouflage could affect the effectiveness of ultraviolet (UV) therapy. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the effect of a camouflage agent containing 3.6% DHA on UV-induced erythema.
methodsFifty-one healthy volunteers of skin type III to IV who came to the hospital were recruited in this study. A 308 nm excimer UV lamp was used to perform the minimum erythema dose (MED) test on the lower back and a camouflage agent containing 3.6% DHA was applied. Four groups were tested on the same individuals (subjects served as their own controls), including no camouflage nor irradiation (Group A), irradiation without camouflage (Group B), camouflage without irradiation (Group C), and camouflage plus irradiation (Group D). Refined MED was evaluated via naked eyes (erMED) and digital dermatoscopes (drMED), The erythema index (EI) value of the targeted site was measured by dermatoscopic digital imaging and analyzed.
resultsAfter the camouflage masking, 43 (84.3%) subjects remained unchanged in erMED, 7 (13.7%) had a MED increase of one grade (+10 mJ/cm
conclusionThe camouflage agent containing 3.6% DHA exhibits statistically significant but clinically negligible effects on erythema in volunteers exposed to 308 nm UV light, requiring no dose adjustment in 84.3% of cases.
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.