ArticleThe Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology2025
Availability of Hats Online in the United States that Meet Sun Protective Recommendations.
Article in The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study is to determine the likelihood for online consumers seeking hats for sun protection in the United States (US) successfully finding one that meets the recommended criteria for adequate UV protection and whether UPF claims made by these products are reliable indicators of this protection based on materials, structure, and design.
methodsOnline US consumer experience was simulated to identify the top 20 hats targeting consumers seeking sun protection. Specific details were evaluated for the top 20 products identified based on the volume of product occurrences identified as key markers for ultraviolet (UV) protection including the hat style, brim length, UPF claims, presence of ventilation eyelets or mesh, and presence of a reflective undersurface.
resultsAlthough 90 percent of hats marketed for use in the sun made UPF claims, there was a 60 percent probability of finding a hat that conformed to stringent UPF standards for hats set forth by UK and Australian testing standards for UPF claims to be made by hats to be used for sun protection factoring in materials, structure, and design.
conclusionGiven the lack of conformity for UPF testing and 33 percent of hats failing to meet criteria for adequate sun protection based on materials, structure, and design, UPF claims for hats sold in the US online are not a reliable indicator for sun protection. Recommendations for hats for UV protection should focus on crown coverage, circumferential brim with length of at least 2.75", materials with minimal disruption, and not UPF claims.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41416229PMC12710866What 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.