Devices measuring transepidermal water loss: A systematic review of measurement properties.
device
instrumentation
skin
systematic review
transepidermal water loss (TEWL)
water loss (insensible)
Journal
Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI)
ISSN: 1600-0846
Titre abrégé: Skin Res Technol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9504453
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2022
Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
21
07
2021
accepted:
09
03
2022
pubmed:
13
4
2022
medline:
20
7
2022
entrez:
12
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The objective of this review is to examine the reliability and measurement error of devices that measure transepidermal water loss (TEWL). TEWL is a physiological property of skin which increases when the epidermis is damaged. It is, therefore, a commonly utilised measure of skin barrier integrity. Devices measuring TEWL are available as open, semi-open or closed chamber. Studies of reliability examine the consistency of measurement, and/or responsiveness whereas measurement error scores in absolute terms the amount of error due to sources of variation. Studies examining the reliability and/or measurement error of TEWL measurement devices were included. Studies that only report on measurement of TEWL outcomes without examination of reliability and/or measurement error were excluded. The search strategy aimed to locate published and unpublished studies. Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science, utilising identified keywords and limited to studies in English. Grey literature sources were searched to identify any unpublished documents. Study selection using the inclusion criteria was then assessed by two reviewers for methodological quality utilising the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias tool to assess the reliability and measurement error of outcome measurement instruments. A total of 22 devices were examined in the 38 included studies. The quality of study design was on average rated as 'Adequate' however reliability and measurement error statistical methods were on average rated as 'Doubtful'. TEWL measurement devices were found to demonstrate good reliability and frequently correlated with other devices. However, measurement error was highly variable but improves under in vitro conditions. Future research should consider risk of bias factors when designing studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35411958
doi: 10.1111/srt.13159
pmc: PMC9907714
doi:
Substances chimiques
Water
059QF0KO0R
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
497-539Subventions
Organisme : Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship
Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Skin Research and Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Acta Derm Venereol. 1994 May;74(3):168-70
pubmed: 7915454
Sensors (Basel). 2019 Sep 06;19(18):
pubmed: 31500135
Skin Res Technol. 2005 Aug;11(3):205-8
pubmed: 15998333
Clin Phys Physiol Meas. 1985 May;6(2):147-54
pubmed: 4017445
Curr Probl Dermatol. 1995;23:152-8
pubmed: 9035908
Skin Res Technol. 2021 Jan;27(1):15-23
pubmed: 32573826
Exp Dermatol. 2006 Jul;15(7):483-92
pubmed: 16761956
Acta Derm Venereol. 1987;67(3):206-10
pubmed: 2442932
Qual Life Res. 2018 May;27(5):1147-1157
pubmed: 29435801
Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2005 Jul-Aug;18(4):180-5
pubmed: 15908758
Skin Res Technol. 2020 Sep;26(5):713-717
pubmed: 32227383
Med Biol Eng Comput. 1977 May;15(3):209-18
pubmed: 195148
Exp Dermatol. 2006 Nov;15(11):904-12
pubmed: 17002688
J Invest Dermatol. 2018 Nov;138(11):2295-2300.e1
pubmed: 30348333
Pediatr Dermatol. 2020 Sep;37(5):860-863
pubmed: 32748517
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Jul;63(7):737-45
pubmed: 20494804
Skin Res Technol. 2021 Sep;27(5):824-830
pubmed: 33665909
Skin Pharmacol. 1995;8(4):186-95
pubmed: 7488395
Int J Cosmet Sci. 2005 Aug;27(4):237-41
pubmed: 18492192
Arch Dermatol Res. 1982;274(1-2):57-64
pubmed: 7165368
Skin Res Technol. 2005 Feb;11(1):61-9
pubmed: 15691261
Postepy Dermatol Alergol. 2016 Feb;33(1):1-5
pubmed: 26985171
Skin Res Technol. 2010 Feb;16(1):9-15
pubmed: 20384878
Skin Res Technol. 2018 Aug;24(3):351-358
pubmed: 29923639
Burns. 2016 Nov;42(7):1455-1462
pubmed: 27233677
Arch Dermatol. 1967 Oct;96(4):441-52
pubmed: 6046392
Skin Res Technol. 2009 Feb;15(1):51-4
pubmed: 19152579
J Dermatol Sci. 1990 May;1(3):201-6
pubmed: 2085507
Br J Dermatol. 2018 Nov;179(5):1049-1055
pubmed: 30022486
Skin Res Technol. 2009 Nov;15(4):392-8
pubmed: 19832948
Skin Res Technol. 2022 Jul;28(4):497-539
pubmed: 35411958
Ann Physiol Anthropol. 1992 Jul;11(4):417-23
pubmed: 1388405
Skin Res Technol. 2013 Aug;19(3):265-78
pubmed: 23331328
Burns. 2013 May;39(3):420-8
pubmed: 23000371
Skin Res Technol. 2011 Aug;17(3):366-72
pubmed: 21492241
Skin Res Technol. 2019 Jan;25(1):25-29
pubmed: 29863296
JBI Evid Synth. 2021 Jun 7;19(10):2893-2903
pubmed: 34100828
Vet Dermatol. 2010 Apr;21(2):136-45
pubmed: 19961567
J Vet Med Sci. 2007 Mar;69(3):289-92
pubmed: 17409646
Skin Res Technol. 2019 Sep;25(5):612-617
pubmed: 30942506
Contact Dermatitis. 1989 Apr;20(4):241-6
pubmed: 2752735
Skin Res Technol. 2002 Feb;8(1):7-12
pubmed: 12005122
Burns. 2016 Mar;42(2):336-44
pubmed: 26774602
Skin Res Technol. 2017 Nov;23(4):597-601
pubmed: 28517733
Skin Res Technol. 2003 May;9(2):85-9
pubmed: 12709124
Int J Cosmet Sci. 2009 Apr;31(2):97-118
pubmed: 19175433
Burns Trauma. 2016 Apr 27;4:14
pubmed: 27574684
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Dec 3;20(1):293
pubmed: 33267819
Skin Res Technol. 2017 Feb;23(1):70-78
pubmed: 27637867
Arch Dermatol Res. 2022 Mar;314(2):99-119
pubmed: 33638033
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):1006-12
pubmed: 19631508
Skin Res Technol. 2007 May;13(2):207-10
pubmed: 17374064
J Invest Dermatol. 1999 Oct;113(4):533-40
pubmed: 10504437