Devices measuring transepidermal water loss of the skin: a systematic review protocol of measurement properties.
Journal
JBI evidence synthesis
ISSN: 2689-8381
Titre abrégé: JBI Evid Synth
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101764819
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2021
10 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
9
6
2021
medline:
3
11
2021
entrez:
8
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The objective of this review is to examine the reliability and measurement error of devices that measure transepidermal water loss. Transepidermal water loss is a physiological property of skin that increases when the epidermis is damaged. It is, therefore, a commonly utilized measure of skin barrier integrity. Devices measuring transepidermal water loss are available as open, semi-open, or closed chamber. Studies that examine the similarities and differences between transepidermal water loss measurement devices are available. However, there has not been a systematic review to comprehensively collate and critique these studies. The aim of this review will be to synthesize the data from these studies to aid in selection and use of transepidermal water loss measurement devices in clinical practice or research. Studies examining the reliability and/or measurement error of transepidermal water loss measurement devices will be included. Studies that examine a single device to demonstrate how different handling affects measurements will also be included. Studies that only report on measurement of transepidermal water loss outcomes without examination of reliability and/or measurement error will be excluded. The search strategy will aim to locate published and unpublished studies. Databases to be searched will include PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science, utilizing identified keywords and limited to studies in English. Gray literature sources will be searched to identify any unpublished documents. Study selection will adhere to the inclusion criteria and then be assessed by two reviewers for methodological quality utilizing COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments) guidelines and risk of bias tools. Extracted data will be presented in a narrative synthesis and as tables and figures to aid data presentation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34100828
doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00468
pii: 02174543-900000000-99637
doi:
Substances chimiques
Water
059QF0KO0R
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2893-2903Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 JBI.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
Boer M, Duchnik E, Maleszka R, Marchlewicz M. Structural and biophysical characteristics of human skin in maintaining proper epidermal barrier function. Adv Dermatol Allergol 2016;1:1–5.
Merk HF. Krutman J, Merk HF. Barrier skin. Springer, Environment Skin. Switzerland:2018.
Akdeniz M, Gabriel S, Lichterfeld-Kottner A, Blume-Peytavi U, Kottner J. Transepidermal water loss in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis update. Br J Dermatol 2018;179 (5):1049–1055.
Berardesca E, Loden M, Serup J, Masson P, Rodrigues LM. The revised EEMCO guidance for the in vivo measurement of water in the skin. Skin Res Technol 2018;24 (3):351–358.
du Plessis J, Stefaniak A, Eloff F, John S, Agner T, Chou TC, et al. International guidelines for the in vivo assessment of skin properties in non-clinical settings: Part 2. transepidermal water loss and skin hydration. Skin Res Technol 2013;19 (3):265–278.
Kikuchi K, Asano M, Tagami H, Kato M, Aiba S. Comparison of the measuring efficacy of transepidermal water loss of a reasonably priced, portable closed-chamber system device H4500 with that of rather expensive, conventional devices such as Tewameter® and Vapometer®. Skin Res Technol 2017;23 (4):597–601.
Lee KC, Dretzke J, Grover L, Logan A, Moiemen N. A systematic review of objective burn scar measurements. Burns Trauma 2016;4:14.
Fluhr JW, Feingold KR, Elias PM. Transepidermal water loss reflects permeability barrier status: validation in human and rodent in vivo and ex vivo models. Exp Dermatol 2006;15 (7):483–492.
Rosado C, Pinto P, Rodrigues LM. Comparative assessment of the performance of two generations of Tewameter: TM210 and TM300. Int J Cosmet Sci 2005;24 (4):237–241.
De Paepe K, Houben E, Adam R, Wiesemann F, Rogiers V. Validation of the VapoMeter, a closed unventilated chamber system to assess transepidermal water loss vs. the open chamber Tewameter. Skin Res Technol 2005;11 (1):61–69.
Anthonissen M, Daly D, Fieuws S, Massage P, Van Brussel M, Vranckx J, et al. Measurement of elasticity and transepidermal water loss rate of burn scars with the Dermalab(R). Burns 2013;39 (3):420–428.
Stephenson M, Riitano D, Wilson S, Leonardi-Bee J, Mabire C, Cooper K et al. Chapter 12: Systematic reviews of measurement properties. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis [internet]. Adelaide: JBI; 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 15]. Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global.
Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res 2018;27 (5):1147–1157.
Nilsson GE. Measurement of water exchange through the skin. Med Biol Eng Compt 1977;15:209–218.
Alexander H, Brown S, Danby S, Flohr C. Research techniques made simple: transepidermal water loss measurement as a research tool. J Invest Dermatol 2018;138 (11):2295–300.e1.
Imhof RE, Xiao P, Berg EP, Ciortea LI. Rapid measurement of TEWL with a condenser-chamber instrument. 15th International Meeting of the ISBS and 2nd Joint International Meeting of ISBS and ISSI. Philadelphia 2005 [cited 2021 Feb 15]; Avavilable from: https://www.bioxsystems.com/library/conference-presentations/conf-contrib-10/.
Nuutinen J, Alanen E, Autio P, Lahtinen MR, Harvima I, Lahtinen T. A closed unventilated chamber for the measurement of transepidermal water loss. Skin Res Technol 2003;9 (2):85–89.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63 (7):737–745.
Mokkink LB, Boers M, Vleuten CPMvd, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. COSMIN Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of studies on reliability or measurement error of outcome measurement instruments: a Delphi study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2020;20 (1):293.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. the PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62 (10):1006–1012.
Rosenkoetter U, Tate RL. Assessing features of psychometric assessment instruments: a comparison of the COSMIN checklist with other critical appraisal tools. Brain Impair 2017;19 (1):103–118.
Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res 2012;21 (4):651–657.
Mokkink LB, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW et al. COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) user manual [internet]. 2018 [cited 2020 Aug 17]. Available from: https://www.cosmin.nl/tools/guideline-conducting-systematic-review-outcome-measures/.
Schunemann H, Brozek J, Guyatt G, Oxman A, editors. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Updated Oct 2013. 2013 [cited 2020 May 24]. Available from: https://gradepro.org/handbook/