• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

评估不同 Fitzpatrick 皮肤类型的皮肤敏感性。

Objective Evaluation of Skin Sensitivity Across Fitzpatrick Skin Types.

出版信息

J Drugs Dermatol. 2020 Jul 1;19(7):699-701. doi: 10.36849/JDD.2020.5880.

DOI:10.36849/JDD.2020.5880
PMID:32726552
Abstract

Context: Skin sensitivity may be best defined as self-reported intolerance to application of skincare products. It is commonly believed that individuals with darker skin are generally less sensitive, while those lighter skin are more sensitive. However, there is little objective data correlating sensitivity with skin type or with objective measures of sensitivity. Objective: This study assessed Fitzpatrick skin type and self-reported perception of skin sensitivity. Design: A single-blinded, lactic acid sting test was performed on the medial cheeks, where patients were randomized to receive room temperature 10% lactic acid on the left or right cheek with water applied to the contralateral cheek as a control. Outcome Measures: Stinging was assessed 1 minute after application of test solution to one cheek using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Results: There was a statistically significant difference in self-reported skin sensitivity in patients with Fitzpatrick skin types 1-3 vs 4-6 (73.6% vs 46.5%; P= 0.006). Patients who had higher perceived sensitivity were more likely to have objectively measured sensitivity as well, across all skin types (P<0.01). When stratified by skin type, a numerically higher percentage of subjects with Fitzpatrick skin types 1-3 experienced objective sensitivity compared to subjects with skin types 4-6 (45.6% vs 27.9; P=0.058). Conclusions: Patients with self-perceived skin sensitivity were more likely to develop objective stinging compared to those who did not report sensitivity. Skin sensitivity can occur across all skin types, and patients should be asked about self-perceptions of sensitivity as it is likely an indicator of true sensitivity. J Drugs Dermatol. 2020;19(7): doi:10.36849/JDD.2020.5880.

摘要

背景

皮肤敏感性最好的定义是自我报告的对护肤品应用的不耐受。人们普遍认为,深色皮肤的人通常不太敏感,而浅色皮肤的人则更敏感。然而,很少有客观数据将敏感性与皮肤类型或敏感性的客观测量相关联。

目的

本研究评估了 Fitzpatrick 皮肤类型和自我报告的皮肤敏感性感知。

设计

在颊内侧进行单盲乳酸刺痛试验,将患者随机分配到左侧或右侧接受室温 10%乳酸,另一侧用清水作为对照。

观察指标

在一侧脸颊涂抹测试溶液 1 分钟后,使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)评估刺痛感。

结果

Fitzpatrick 皮肤类型 1-3 与 4-6 的患者自我报告的皮肤敏感性存在统计学显著差异(73.6% vs 46.5%;P=0.006)。所有皮肤类型中,感知敏感性较高的患者也更有可能具有客观测量的敏感性(P<0.01)。按皮肤类型分层,Fitzpatrick 皮肤类型 1-3 的患者中,客观敏感性的患者比例明显高于皮肤类型 4-6 的患者(45.6% vs 27.9%;P=0.058)。

结论

与没有报告敏感性的患者相比,自我报告皮肤敏感性的患者更有可能出现客观刺痛。敏感性可发生在所有皮肤类型中,应询问患者对自身敏感性的感知,因为这可能是真正敏感性的指标。

皮肤病药物杂志。2020;19(7):10.36849/JDD.2020.5880.

相似文献

1
Objective Evaluation of Skin Sensitivity Across Fitzpatrick Skin Types.评估不同 Fitzpatrick 皮肤类型的皮肤敏感性。
J Drugs Dermatol. 2020 Jul 1;19(7):699-701. doi: 10.36849/JDD.2020.5880.
2
Objective determination of Fitzpatrick skin type.客观确定菲茨帕特里克皮肤类型。
Dan Med Bull. 2010 Aug;57(8):B4153.
3
Comparison of Demographic and Photobiological Features of Chronic Actinic Dermatitis in Patients With Lighter vs Darker Skin Types.肤色较浅与较深的慢性光化性皮炎患者的人口统计学和光生物学特征比较
JAMA Dermatol. 2017 May 1;153(5):427-435. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.5861.
4
A Randomized, Investigator-Blinded Comparison of Two Topical Regimens in Fitzpatrick Skin Types III-VI With Moderate to Severe Facial Hyperpigmentation.针对 Fitzpatrick III-VI 型皮肤、有中度至重度面部色素沉着患者的两种局部用药方案的随机、研究者盲法比较
J Drugs Dermatol. 2017 Nov 1;16(11):1127-1132.
5
Side effects from intense pulsed light: Importance of skin pigmentation, fluence level and ultraviolet radiation-A randomized controlled trial.强脉冲光的副作用:皮肤色素沉着、能量密度水平和紫外线辐射的重要性——一项随机对照试验
Lasers Surg Med. 2017 Jan;49(1):88-96. doi: 10.1002/lsm.22566. Epub 2016 Jul 30.
6
Skin sensitivity evaluation: What could impact the assessment results?皮肤敏感性评估:哪些因素可能影响评估结果?
J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020 May;19(5):1231-1238. doi: 10.1111/jocd.13128. Epub 2019 Sep 9.
7
Fitzpatrick skin types and clindamycin phosphate 1.2%/benzoyl peroxide gel: efficacy and tolerability of treatment in moderate to severe acne.菲茨帕特里克皮肤类型与1.2%磷酸克林霉素/过氧化苯甲酰凝胶:治疗中度至重度痤疮的疗效和耐受性
J Drugs Dermatol. 2012 May;11(5):643-8.
8
Baseline biophysical parameters in subjects with sensitive skin.敏感性皮肤受试者的基线生物物理参数。
Contact Dermatitis. 1998 Jun;38(6):311-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0536.1998.tb05764.x.
9
Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of Topical Dapsone Gel, 7.5% for Treatment of Acne Vulgaris by Fitzpatrick Skin Phototype.7.5%外用氨苯砜凝胶治疗不同 Fitzpatrick 皮肤光型寻常痤疮的疗效、安全性及耐受性
J Drugs Dermatol. 2018 Feb 1;17(2):160-167.
10
Association between lactic acid sting test scores, self-assessed sensitive skin scores and biophysical properties in Chinese females.乳酸刺痛试验评分、自我评估敏感皮肤评分与中国女性皮肤生物学特性的相关性研究。
Int J Cosmet Sci. 2019 Aug;41(4):398-404. doi: 10.1111/ics.12550. Epub 2019 Jul 31.

引用本文的文献

1
Shedding Light on Acne Scars: A Comprehensive Review of CO2 vs. Erbium-Doped Yttrium Aluminium Garnet (Er:YAG) Laser Therapy.揭开痤疮疤痕的面纱:二氧化碳与掺铒钇铝石榴石(Er:YAG)激光治疗的综合综述
Cureus. 2024 Apr 3;16(4):e57572. doi: 10.7759/cureus.57572. eCollection 2024 Apr.
2
The relationship between the distribution of facial erythema and skin type in rosacea patients: a cross-sectional analysis.面部红斑分布与酒渣鼻患者皮肤类型的关系:一项横断面分析。
Arch Dermatol Res. 2023 Sep;315(7):2179-2182. doi: 10.1007/s00403-023-02602-9. Epub 2023 Mar 20.