Kütting Birgitta, Drexler Hans
Institute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Schillerstrasse 25/29, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2003 May;76(4):253-9. doi: 10.1007/s00420-003-0437-6. Epub 2003 Apr 8.
This study attempts to assess the evidence of the generally recommended three-step programme of skin protection in the prevention of occupational skin disease.
The following clinical questions, representative of critical appraisal of this preventive measurement, were generated: (1) Can a skincare regimen effectively reduce or eliminate work-related poor skin conditions? (2) Do protective creams prevent harmful substances from penetrating and adhering to the skin? (3) Is the differentiation between pre-exposure and post-exposure products justified by reliable data? Answers were generated according to the method used in evidence-based medicine by searching the literature, critically appraising the results and applying the results to the clinical questions. For our search we decided to use PubMed as the most convenient access to Medline and because, in contrast to other databases, this access is available free of charge.
To investigate the efficacy of barrier creams as pre-exposure skin protectors various in vitro and in vivo test methods have been developed. Over the past years the test techniques have been improved in order to adopt a real workplace situation. Efforts for standardisation of evaluation criteria have been made, too. Nevertheless, there is a lack of placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trials evaluating the benefit of these products in the prevention of occupational contact dermatitis under real workplace conditions. The literature data are conflicting; some publications report on the positive aspects of skin protection, whereas others stress the negative ones.
Not enough data have been accumulated for one to prove the benefit of skin protection measures under real workplace condition. Up to now, it is almost unclear if the various in vitro and in vivo methods used are suitable to simulate real workplace conditions and if these test results can be related to real occupational exposure. For the evidence-based recommendation of skin protection, further studies, especially under daily working conditions evaluating the contribution of each single element of skincare programme (products, frequency of application and education programme) are needed.
本研究旨在评估预防职业性皮肤病时普遍推荐的三步皮肤保护方案的证据。
针对这一预防性措施的关键评估,提出了以下临床问题:(1)皮肤护理方案能否有效减轻或消除与工作相关的皮肤不良状况?(2)防护霜能否防止有害物质渗透并附着于皮肤?(3)暴露前和暴露后产品的区分是否有可靠数据支持?根据循证医学中使用的方法,通过检索文献、严格评估结果并将结果应用于临床问题来得出答案。在检索时,我们决定使用PubMed,因为它是访问Medline最便捷的途径,而且与其他数据库不同,此访问是免费的。
为了研究防护霜作为暴露前皮肤保护剂的功效,已经开发了各种体外和体内测试方法。在过去几年中,测试技术不断改进,以适应实际工作场所的情况。同时也努力对评估标准进行标准化。然而,缺乏在实际工作场所条件下评估这些产品在预防职业性接触性皮炎方面益处的安慰剂对照随机临床试验。文献数据相互矛盾;一些出版物报道了皮肤保护的积极方面,而另一些则强调了消极方面。
目前积累的数据不足以证明在实际工作场所条件下皮肤保护措施的益处。到目前为止,几乎不清楚所使用的各种体外和体内方法是否适合模拟实际工作场所条件,以及这些测试结果是否能与实际职业暴露相关联。为了基于证据推荐皮肤保护措施,需要进一步开展研究,尤其是在日常工作条件下评估皮肤护理方案的每个单一要素(产品、使用频率和教育方案)的作用。