↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for photodamaged skin

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Interventions for photodamaged skin
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001782.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Miny Samuel, Rebecca Brooke, Sally Hollis, Christopher EM Griffiths

Abstract

Photodamage describes skin changes such as fine and coarse wrinkles, roughness, freckles and pigmentation changes that occur as a result of prolonged exposure to the sun. Many treatments are available to reverse the damage, but it is unclear which work and at what cost in terms of unwanted side effects. To assess the effects of topically applied treatments, tablet treatments, laser and surgical procedures for photodamaged skin. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2002, MEDLINE (1966-June 2002), EMBASE (1974-June 2002), Health Periodicals (1976-June 2002). We checked references of articles and communicated with authors and the pharmaceutical industry. Randomised controlled trials which compared drug or surgical interventions with no treatment, placebo or another drug, in adults with mild, moderate or severe photodamage of the face or forearms. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Thirty studies of variable quality were included.Eight trials showed that topical tretinoin cream, in concentrations of 0.02% or higher, was superior to placebo for participants with mild to severe photodamage on the face and forearms (although losses to follow up were relatively high in most studies). For example, the relative risk of improvement for 0.05% tretinoin cream, compared to placebo (3 studies), at 24 weeks, was 1.73 (95% confidence interval 1.39 to 2.14). This effect was not seen for 0.001% topical tretinoin (1 study) or 0.01% (3 studies). A dose-response relationship was evident for both effectiveness and skin irritation.One small within-patient study showed benefit from topical ascorbic acid compared with placebo.Tazarotene (0.01% to 0.1%) and isotretinoin (0.1%) both showed significant improvement over placebo for moderate photodamage (one study each).There is limited evidence (one trial), to show that the effectiveness of 0.05% tretinoin, is equivalent to the effects of 0.05% and 0.1% tazarotene.One small study showed greater improvement in upper lip wrinkles with CO2 laser technique compared to Baker's phenol chemical peel, at six months.Three small RCTs comparing CO2 laser with dermabrasion found no difference in wrinkle score at four to six months, suggesting that both methods are equally efficacious, but more erythema was reported with the laser.The effectiveness of other interventions such as hydroxy acids and natural polysaccharides was not clear. There is conclusive evidence that topical tretinoin improves the appearance of mild to moderate photodamage on the face and forearms, in the short-term. However erythema, scaling/dryness, burning/stinging and irritation may be experienced initially.There is limited evidence that tazarotene and isotretinoin benefit patients with moderate photodamage on the face: both are associated with skin irritation and erythema. The effectiveness of other interventions remains uncertain.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 55 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Librarian 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Chemical Engineering 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 14 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 March 2021.
All research outputs
#3,327,597
of 17,411,817 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,962
of 11,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,528
of 242,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#156
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,411,817 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,670 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.1. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 242,043 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 248 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.