ArticleSkin health and disease2026
Sensoriality of emollient creams: can sensory experience compromise blinding in trials?
Article in Skin health and disease, 2026. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Regular application of emollients, particularly those that enhance the skin's acid mantle and promote ceramide production, can help restore skin barrier integrity, reduce inflammation and prevent disease flares. These emollients not only protect the skin, but also modulate on the skin microbiome, which has become a cornerstone in disease management. Sensory properties, such as texture, appearance and the sensation of freshness, are critical factors influencing patient perception, treatment adherence and product efficacy. Objectives: To test, a controlled study involving 120 participants, the ability of consumers to recognize emollient creams based solely on sensory characteristics to ensure that sensory stimuli from emollients cannot be a source of unblinding in a clinical trial involving topical corticosteroids. Methods: We conducted a double-blind quantitative assessment in a controlled environment involving 120 healthy volunteers who were regular users of moisturizing creams, of whom 50% were classified as 'naïve' users and 50% as 'connoisseurs'. The creams under investigation ( Results: There were no significant statistical differences in overall appearance, shine or transparency between the four emollients. Only 6% of consumers recognized Neutraderm, 8% La Roche-Posay, 6% Avene and 4% Uriage (i.e. figures below any recognition by chance). Overall, we report a satisfaction rate of almost 60% for the topicals used (from 45% up to 64%). Conclusions: This finding supports the feasibility of conducting blinded clinical trials on the emollients used in this study as sensory cues are unlikely to compromise the blinding.
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.