ArticleContact dermatitis2026
Assessing Skin Barrier Integrity: A Comparative Study Using Transepidermal Water Loss, Electrical Impedance Spectroscopy and Corneometry.
Article in Contact dermatitis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Variants at 8p21.3 Mediate BMP1 Expression, Contributing to Higher Atopic Dermatitis Risk.Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology · 2026Article
- Epidermal Permeability Barrier Dysfunction Influences Acute and Chronic Skin Responses to UVA and UVB Radiation.Photodermatology, photoimmunology & photomedicine · 2026Article
- Demonstration of Gliadin Penetration into the Epidermis by Tape Stripping as Prerequisite for Percutaneous Sensitisation in Wheat Allergy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Plant oil complex: dual activation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors α andOpen life sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSkin barrier disruption can be induced through experimental models, yet standardised comparisons are scarce. Transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and corneometry (CM) are established methods to quantify barrier impairment. Electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) is a novel approach, which may provide complementary information.
objectivesTo compare EIS against TEWL and CM and to assess different barrier disruption models in humans in vivo.
methods15 healthy adults (7 female, 8 male; median age 27 years) were recruited. Experiment I compared 3 adhesive tapes for tape stripping (TS). Experiment II evaluated TS, 0.5% sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS), SLS + TS, and gluten using TEWL, EIS, and CM.
resultsD-Squame tape caused stronger barrier impairment than Scotch and Tesa (TEWL p < 0.01, EIS p < 0.05). SLS + TS induced the most (8 h: TEWL p < 0.001; EIS p < 0.05; CM p < 0.05) and persistent disruption (24 h: TEWL p < 0.05, EIS p < 0.05), followed by TS (8 h: TEWL p < 0.01; EIS p < 0.05). SLS and aqua caused minor, non-significant effects; gluten had no measurable impact. EIS correlated strongly with TEWL (ρ = -0.62, p < 0.0001) and CM (ρ = -0.61, p < 0.0001).
conclusionsThis first human study of EIS after experimental barrier disruption demonstrated strong concordance with TEWL and CM. Combined mechanical and chemical stress best reflects real-life barrier insults and represents a potent model.
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.