Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41375772›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025

From Lab to Workplace: Efficacy of Skin Protection Creams Against Hydrophobic Working Materials.

Anja Dick, Magdalena Metzger, Peter Dungel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Anja DickPeter Greven Physioderm GmbH, 53881 Euskirchen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5525-9245
Magdalena MetzgerLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Traumatology, The Research Center in Cooperation with AUVA, 1200 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-2203-2049
Peter DungelLudwig Boltzmann Institute for Traumatology, The Research Center in Cooperation with AUVA, 1200 Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-6302-530X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Occupational dermatoses represent a significant challenge across numerous industries. Therefore, occupational skin protection creams are frequently used as a preventative measure, yet their efficacy, particularly against hydrophobic working materials, remains inconclusive. This review provides an overview of the current knowledge concerning the mechanisms by which skin protection creams support skin barrier function, as well as the limitations of available testing methods. Current evaluation methods range from in vitro assays to ex vivo and in vivo models, each possessing distinct advantages and disadvantages. While several clinical studies demonstrate effectiveness against hydrophilic irritants, standardized and ethically viable methods for assessing protection against hydrophobic substances are lacking. Future research should focus on the development and validation of improved in vitro and ex vivo models, coupled with enhanced workplace simulation techniques, to facilitate a more accurate translation of laboratory findings to real-world occupational settings. Consistent and reliable testing is essential to ensure continued efficacy of these products in light of evolving regulatory landscapes.

Indexed as

contact dermatitisirritantoccupationpreventionskin

Identifiers

PMID41375772
PMCPMC12693653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.