-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Ageing has a degenerative effect on the skin, leaving it more vulnerable to damage. Hygiene and emollient interventions may help maintain skin integrity in older people... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Ageing has a degenerative effect on the skin, leaving it more vulnerable to damage. Hygiene and emollient interventions may help maintain skin integrity in older people in hospital and residential care settings; however, at present, most care is based on "tried and tested" practice, rather than on evidence.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of hygiene and emollient interventions for maintaining skin integrity in older people in hospital and residential care settings.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL, up to January 2019. We also searched five trials registers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing hygiene and emollient interventions versus placebo, no intervention, or standard practices for older people aged ≥ 60 years in hospital or residential care settings.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were frequency of skin damage, for example, complete loss of integrity (tears or ulceration) or partial loss of integrity (fissuring), and side effects. Secondary outcomes included transepidermal water loss (TEWL), stratum corneum hydration (SCH), erythema, and clinical scores of dryness or itch. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six trials involving 1598 residential care home residents; no included trial had a hospital setting. Most participants had a mean age of 80+ years; when specified, more women were recruited than men. Two studies included only people with diagnosed dry skin. Studies were conducted in Asia, Australasia, Europe, and North America. A range of hygiene and emollient interventions were assessed: a moisturising soap bar; combinations of water soak, oil soak, and lotion; regular application of a commercially available moisturiser; use of two different standardised skin care regimens comprising a body wash and leave-on body lotion; bed bath with "wash gloves" containing numerous ingredients; and application of a hot towel after usual care bed bath. In five studies, treatment duration ranged from five days to six months; only one study had post-treatment follow-up (one to eight days from end of treatment). Outcomes in the hot towel study were measured 15 minutes after the skin was wiped with a dry towel. Three studies each had high risk of attrition, detection, and performance bias. Only one trial (n = 984) assessed frequency of skin damage via average monthly incidence of skin tears during six months of treatment. The emollient group (usual care plus twice-daily application of moisturiser) had 5.76 tears per month per 1000 occupied bed-days compared with 10.57 tears in the usual care only group (ad hoc or no standardised skin-moisturising regimen) (P = 0.004), but this is based on very low-quality evidence, so we are uncertain of this result. Only one trial (n = 133) reported measuring side effects. At 56 ± 4 days from baseline, there were three undesirable effects (itch (mild), redness (mild/moderate), and irritation (severe)) in intervention group 1 (regimen consisting of a moisturising body wash and a moisturising leave-on lotion) and one event (mild skin dryness) in intervention group 2 (regimen consisting of body wash and a water-in-oil emulsion containing emollients and 4% urea). In both groups, the body wash was used daily and the emollient twice daily for eight weeks. There were zero adverse events in the usual care group. This result is based on very low-quality evidence. This same study also measured TEWL at 56 ± 4 days in the mid-volar forearm (n = 106) and the lower leg (n = 105). Compared to usual care, there may be no difference in TEWL between intervention groups, but evidence quality is low. One study, which compared application of a hot towel for 10 seconds after a usual care bed bath versus usual care bed bath only, also measured TEWL at 15 minutes after the skin was wiped with a dry towel for one second. The mean TEWL was 8.6 g/m²/h (standard deviation (SD) 3.2) in the hot towel group compared with 8.9 g/m²/h (SD 4.1) in the usual care group (low-quality evidence; n = 42), showing there may be little or no difference between groups. A lower score is more favourable. Three studies (266 participants) measured SCH, but all evidence is of very low quality; we did not combine these studies due to differences in treatments (different skin care regimens for eight weeks; wash gloves for 12 weeks; and single application of hot towel to the skin) and differences in outcome reporting. All three studies showed no clear difference in SCH at follow-up (ranging from 15 minutes after the intervention to 12 weeks from baseline), when compared with usual care. A clinical score of dryness was measured by three studies (including 245 participants); pooling was not appropriate. The treatment groups (different skin care regimens for eight weeks; a moisturising soap bar used for five days; and combinations of water soak, oil soak, and lotion for 12 days) may reduce dryness compared to standard care or no intervention (results measured at 5, 8, and 56 ± 4 days after treatment was initiated). However, the quality of evidence for this outcome is low. Outcomes of erythema and clinical score of itch were not assessed in any included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence about the effects of hygiene and emollients in maintaining skin integrity in older people in residential and hospital settings is inadequate. We cannot draw conclusions regarding frequency of skin damage or side effects due to very low-quality evidence. Low-quality evidence suggests that in residential care settings for older people, certain types of hygiene and emollient interventions (two different standardised skin care regimens; moisturising soap bar; combinations of water soak, oil soak, and lotion) may be more effective in terms of clinical score of dryness when compared with no intervention or standard care. Studies were small and generally lacked methodological rigour, and information on effect sizes and precision was absent. More clinical trials are needed to guide practice; future studies should use a standard approach to measuring treatment effects and should include patient-reported outcomes, such as comfort and acceptability.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Emollients; Female; Humans; Hygiene; Male; Patient Satisfaction; Pruritus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Skin Care; Soaps; Wounds and Injuries
PubMed: 32006460
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011377.pub2 -
Skin Therapy Letter Mar 2003Skin cleansers may be an important adjunct to the regimen of those who use cosmetics, have sensitive or compromised skin, or utilize topical therapies. Cleansers... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
Skin cleansers may be an important adjunct to the regimen of those who use cosmetics, have sensitive or compromised skin, or utilize topical therapies. Cleansers emulsify dirt, oil and microorganisms on the skin surface so that they can be easily removed. During cleansing, there is a complex interaction between the cleanser, the moisture skin barrier, and skin pH. Cleansing, with water soap or a liquid cleanser, will affect the moisture skin barrier. Soap will bring about the greatest changes to the barrier and increase skin pH. Liquid facial cleansers are gentler, effecting less disruption of the barrier, with minimal change to skin pH, and can provide people with a cleanser that is a combination of surfactant classes, moisturizers and acidic pH in order to minimize disruption to the skin barrier.
Topics: Detergents; Humans; Skin Care
PubMed: 12858234
DOI: No ID Found -
Skin Pharmacology and Physiology 2023Skin care is a basic, daily activity performed by formal and informal caregivers from birth until end of life. Skin care activities are influenced by different factors,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Skin care is a basic, daily activity performed by formal and informal caregivers from birth until end of life. Skin care activities are influenced by different factors, e.g., culture, knowledge, industrial developments and marketing activities. Therefore, various preferences, traditions, and behaviors exist worldwide including skin care of neonates and infants. The objective of this scoping review was to obtain an overview about the evidence of skin care activities in neonates and infants. Studies from 2010 were eligible if the population was (skin) healthy neonates and infants; if the concept was skin care interventions; and if the context was at home, in a community setting, in a pediatric outpatient service, or in a hospital. We searched for the literature via OVID in MEDLINE and Embase, in the Cochrane Library, in trial registries and for gray literature.
SUMMARY
We identified 42 studies since 2010, which examined four main skin care interventions: bathing, wiping, washing, and topical application of leave-on products. Details of interventions were often not reported, and if they were, they were not comparable. The four skin care interventions focused on 13 different care goals, mainly prevention of skin diseases, maintaining skin barrier function, and improving (skin) health. We evaluated effects of skin care interventions using 57 different outcome domains; 39 of 57 were skin-related and 18 were not. Mostly, laboratory or instrumental measurements were used.
KEY MESSAGES
Our scoping review identified four skin care interventions with a broad heterogeneity of product categories and application details. Studies in skin care interventions should include all relevant information about product category and application details to ensure comparability of study results. This would be helpful in developing recommendations for formal and informal caregivers. We identified 13 skin care goals. "Maintaining healthy skin/skin barrier function/skin barrier integrity," "prevention of atopic dermatitis," "cleansing," and "improving skin barrier function" were most often allocated to skin care interventions. There is substantial variability regarding outcome domains in skin care research. Our results support the need of developing core outcome sets in the field of skin care in healthy skin, especially in this age-group of neonates and infants.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Infant; Child; Skin Care; Skin
PubMed: 36750047
DOI: 10.1159/000529550 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Aug 2022Hypothermia during the newborn period is widely regarded as a major contributory cause of significant morbidity and mortality of newborn infants. Thermoprotective... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hypothermia during the newborn period is widely regarded as a major contributory cause of significant morbidity and mortality of newborn infants. Thermoprotective behaviours such as skin-to-skin care (SSC) or the use of appropriate devices have been recommended as simple tools for the avoidance of neonatal hypothermia. We examined the relation between the duration of skin-to-skin care and infant temperature change after birth in suboptimal delivery room temperatures.
METHODS
We reviewed the medical charts of all vaginally born infants of gestational age ≥ 35 weeks born January-July 2018 and admitted to the well-baby nursery. After SSC was discontinued, the infant's rectal temperature was measured to determine the frequency and severity of hypothermia.
RESULTS
The charts of 688 vaginally born infants were examined. Our mean delivery room temperature was 21.7 (SD 2.2) °C, well below the WHO recommendation of 25 °C. After SSC 347 (50.4%) infants were normothermic (temperature 36.5-37.5 °C), 262 (38.0%) were mildly hypothermic (36.0-36.4 °C), and 79 (11.4%) were moderately hypothermic (32.0-35.9 °C). The mean skin-to-skin time in infants was 63.9 (SD 20.9) minutes. SSC duration was associated with increase in rectal temperature for patients of gestational ages ≥ 38 weeks and with decrease in rectal temperature in patients of gestational age < 38 weeks.
CONCLUSION
SSC is effective, even at suboptimal delivery room temperatures, for promoting normothermia in infants of ≥ 38 weeks' gestation but may not provide adequate warmth for infants of < 38 weeks.
Topics: Gestational Age; Humans; Hypothermia; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal; Skin Care; Temperature
PubMed: 35987566
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-022-04983-7 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2018Pressure ulcers, localised injuries to the skin or underlying tissue, or both, occur when people cannot reposition themselves to relieve pressure on bony prominences.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers, localised injuries to the skin or underlying tissue, or both, occur when people cannot reposition themselves to relieve pressure on bony prominences. These wounds are difficult to heal, painful, expensive to manage and have a negative impact on quality of life. Prevention strategies include nutritional support and pressure redistribution. Dressing and topical agents aimed at prevention are also widely used, however, it remains unclear which, if any, are most effective. This is the first update of this review, which was originally published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of dressings and topical agents on pressure ulcer prevention, in people of any age, without existing pressure ulcers, but considered to be at risk of developing one, in any healthcare setting.
SEARCH METHODS
In March 2017 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We searched clinical trials registries for ongoing trials, and bibliographies of relevant publications to identify further eligible trials. There was no restriction on language, date of trial or setting. In May 2018 we updated this search; as a result several trials are awaiting classification.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials that enrolled people at risk of pressure ulcers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
The original search identified nine trials; the updated searches identified a further nine trials meeting our inclusion criteria. Of the 18 trials (3629 participants), nine involved dressings; eight involved topical agents; and one included dressings and topical agents. All trials reported the primary outcome of pressure ulcer incidence.Topical agentsThere were five trials comparing fatty acid interventions to different treatments. Two trials compared fatty acid to olive oil. Pooled evidence shows that there is no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between groups, fatty acid versus olive oil (2 trials, n=1060; RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.17; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision; or fatty acid versus standard care (2 trials, n=187; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.18; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). Trials reported that pressure ulcer incidence was lower with fatty acid-containing-treatment compared with a control compound of trisostearin and perfume (1 trial, n=331; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.80; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). Pooled evidence shows that there is no clear difference in incidence of adverse events between fatty acids and olive oil (1 trial, n=831; RR 2.22 95% CI 0.20 to 24.37; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision).Four trials compared further different topical agents with placebo. Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) cream may increase the risk of pressure ulcer incidence compared with placebo (1 trial, n=61; RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.57; low-certainty evidence; downgraded for serious risk of bias and serious imprecision). The other three trials reported no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between active topical agents and control/placebo; active lotion (1 trial, n=167; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.19), Conotrane (1 trial, n=258; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.07), Prevasore (1 trial, n=120; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.11) (very low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision). There was limited evidence from one trial to determine whether the application of a topical agent may delay or prevent the development of a pressure ulcer (Dermalex 9.8 days vs placebo 8.7 days). Further, two out of 76 reactions occurred in the Dermalex group compared with none out of 91 in the placebo group (RR 6.14, 95% CI 0.29 to 129.89; very low-certainty evidence; downgraded for very serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision).DressingsSix trials (n = 1247) compared a silicone dressing with no dressing. Silicone dressings may reduce pressure ulcer incidence (any stage) (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.41; low-certainty evidence; downgraded for very serious risk of bias). In the one trial (n=77) we rated as being at low risk of bias, there was no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between silicone dressing and placebo-treated groups (RR 1.95, 95% CI 0.18 to 20.61; low-certainty evidence, downgraded for very serious imprecision).One trial (n=74) reported no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence when a thin polyurethane dressing was compared with no dressing (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.07). In the same trial pressure ulcer incidence was reported to be higher in an adhesive foam dressing compared with no dressing (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.48). We rated evidence from this trial as very low certainty (downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious imprecision).Four trials compared other dressings with different controls. Trials reported that there was no clear difference in pressure ulcer incidence between the following comparisons: polyurethane film and hydrocolloid dressing (n=160, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.41); Kang' huier versus routine care n=100; RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.05); 'pressure ulcer preventive dressing' (PPD) versus no dressing (n=74; RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.76) We rated the evidence as very low certainty (downgraded for very serious risk of bias and serious or very serious imprecision).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Most of the trials exploring the impact of topical applications on pressure ulcer incidence showed no clear benefit or harm. Use of fatty acid versus a control compound (a cream that does not include fatty acid) may reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers. Silicone dressings may reduce pressure ulcer incidence (any stage). However the low level of evidence certainty means that additional research is required to confirm these results.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Aged; Allantoin; Bandages; Dimethyl Sulfoxide; Drug Administration Schedule; Drug Combinations; Fatty Acids; Hexachlorophene; Humans; Incidence; Middle Aged; Olive Oil; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Silicones; Skin Care; Skin Cream; Squalene
PubMed: 30537080
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009362.pub3 -
Journal of Investigational Allergology... Dec 2018Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a recurrent and chronic skin disease characterized by dysfunction of the epithelial barrier, skin inflammation, and immune dysregulation, with... (Review)
Review
Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a recurrent and chronic skin disease characterized by dysfunction of the epithelial barrier, skin inflammation, and immune dysregulation, with changes in the skin microbiota and colonization by Staphylococcus aureus being common. For this reason, the therapeutic approach to AD is complex and should be directed at restoring skin barrier function, reducing dehydration, maintaining acidic pH, and avoiding superinfection and exposure to possible allergens. There is no curative treatment for AD. However, a series of measures are recommended to alleviate the disease and enable patients to improve their quality of life. These include adequate skin hydration and restoration of the skin barrier with the use of emollients, antibacterial measures, specific approaches to reduce pruritus and scratching, wet wrap applications, avoidance of typical AD triggers, and topical anti-inflammatory drugs. Anti-inflammatory treatment is generally recommended during acute flares or, more recently, for preventive management. Nevertheless, the selection of the pharmacologic agent, as well as its potency, duration, and frequency of application must be in accordance with the severity of the disease and the distribution and type of the lesion. The objectives of this review are to emphasize the importance of basic skin care and to describe current and novel topical therapies for AD.
Topics: Animals; Dermatitis, Atopic; Humans; Quality of Life; Skin; Skin Care
PubMed: 30004024
DOI: 10.18176/jiaci.0293 -
Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia 2017The skin cells continuously produce, through cellular respiration, metabolic processes or under external aggressions, highly reactive molecules oxidation products,... (Review)
Review
The skin cells continuously produce, through cellular respiration, metabolic processes or under external aggressions, highly reactive molecules oxidation products, generally called free radicals. These molecules are immediately neutralized by enzymatic and non-enzymatic systems in a physiological and dynamic balance. In situations where this balance is broken, various cellular structures, such as the cell membrane, nuclear or mitochondrial DNA may suffer structural modifications, triggering or worsening skin diseases. several substances with alleged antioxidant effects has been offered for topical or oral use, but little is known about their safety, possible associations and especially their mechanism of action. The management of topical and oral antioxidants can help dermatologist to intervene in the oxidative processes safely and effectively, since they know the mechanisms, limitations and potential risks of using these molecules as well as the potential benefits of available associations.
Topics: Antioxidants; Free Radicals; Humans; Oxidative Stress; Skin Aging; Skin Care; Skin Diseases
PubMed: 29186248
DOI: 10.1590/abd1806-4841.20175697 -
Clinics in Dermatology 2009Cosmeceuticals are used for nourishing and improving the appearance of the skin and are also documented as effective agents for treating various dermatologic conditions.... (Review)
Review
Cosmeceuticals are used for nourishing and improving the appearance of the skin and are also documented as effective agents for treating various dermatologic conditions. Cosmeceutical preparations from herbal origin are most popular among consumers because these agents are mostly nontoxic and possess strong antioxidant activity. Because oxidative stress is one of the major mechanisms for skin aging and dermatologic conditions, phytochemicals with proven antioxidant activity, such as silibinin, could be useful for treating many dermatologic conditions as well as skin aging. Silibinin is a flavonolignan compound from Silybum marianum (milk thistle plant) that possesses strong antioxidant activity and also modulates many molecular changes caused by xenobiotics and ultraviolet radiation to protect the skin. This contribution reviews the evidence generated from laboratory studies to support the scientific rationale for the effective use of silibinin in cosmeceutical preparations.
Topics: Antioxidants; Cosmetics; Dermatologic Agents; Esthetics; Female; Humans; Male; Plant Extracts; Silybin; Silymarin; Skin Aging; Skin Care; Skin Diseases; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 19695480
DOI: 10.1016/j.clindermatol.2009.05.012 -
American Journal of Public Health Aug 2008To quantify the effect of hand-hygiene interventions on rates of gastrointestinal and respiratory illnesses and to identify interventions that provide the greatest... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
To quantify the effect of hand-hygiene interventions on rates of gastrointestinal and respiratory illnesses and to identify interventions that provide the greatest efficacy, we searched 4 electronic databases for hand-hygiene trials published from January 1960 through May 2007 and conducted meta-analyses to generate pooled rate ratios across interventions (N=30 studies). Improvements in hand hygiene resulted in reductions in gastrointestinal illness of 31% (95% confidence intervals [CI]=19%, 42%) and reductions in respiratory illness of 21% (95% CI=5%, 34%). The most beneficial intervention was hand-hygiene education with use of nonantibacterial soap. Use of antibacterial soap showed little added benefit compared with use of nonantibacterial soap. Hand hygiene is clearly effective against gastrointestinal and, to a lesser extent, respiratory infections. Studies examining hygiene practices during respiratory illness and interventions targeting aerosol transmission are needed.
Topics: Communicable Disease Control; Communicable Diseases; Community-Acquired Infections; Databases, Bibliographic; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Hand Disinfection; Humans; Respiratory Tract Infections; Risk Assessment; Skin Care; Surface-Active Agents
PubMed: 18556606
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.124610 -
Intensive Care Medicine Dec 2021
Topics: Female; Humans; Mothers; Respiration, Artificial; Skin Care
PubMed: 34226944
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-021-06468-1