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) · 2016
A randomized, controlled trial comparing skin health effects and comfort of two adult incontinence protective underwear.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Trowbridge M M, Wang B, Gutshall D, Rodenberg C A, Farage M A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: It is important to confirm product use effects on skin health for products intended for prolonged skin contact. This study compared experimental and marketed reference adult incontinence protective underwear.
METHODS: Randomized, single-blind (examiner), parallel study evaluating skin health effects in predominantly obese incontinent women normally using protective underwear (approximately 20% Type II Diabetes). Subjects wore experimental or marketed reference protective underwear daily, 14 consecutive days. Visual skin grading, transepidermal water loss (TEWL) assessed before, after 1 and 2 weeks of product wear. Overall assessment of comfort assessed.
RESULTS: Of the 122 subjects (60 experimental and 62 marketed reference), 22 were diabetic and 88 were postmenopausal. Under the conditions of this study, there were no statistically significant differences in overall change from baseline for visual grading and TEWL between the experimental product and the marketed reference product for all subjects. Changes from baseline for skin erythema and skin marking were generally small for both products for all subjects as well as for both diabetics and non-diabetics. There were no serious adverse events (AEs), and no withdrawals due to AEs. Overall comfort assessments of size and fit were 'just right,' and skin comfort in the leg, waist and crotch areas were 'comfortable' or 'very comfortable' for both products.
CONCLUSIONS: In-use 14-day testing demonstrated few statistical differences between experimental product with unique odor neutralizing technology and currently marketed product for skin assessments and comfort. Both products were comfortable and well-tolerated.
METHODS: Randomized, single-blind (examiner), parallel study evaluating skin health effects in predominantly obese incontinent women normally using protective underwear (approximately 20% Type II Diabetes). Subjects wore experimental or marketed reference protective underwear daily, 14 consecutive days. Visual skin grading, transepidermal water loss (TEWL) assessed before, after 1 and 2 weeks of product wear. Overall assessment of comfort assessed.
RESULTS: Of the 122 subjects (60 experimental and 62 marketed reference), 22 were diabetic and 88 were postmenopausal. Under the conditions of this study, there were no statistically significant differences in overall change from baseline for visual grading and TEWL between the experimental product and the marketed reference product for all subjects. Changes from baseline for skin erythema and skin marking were generally small for both products for all subjects as well as for both diabetics and non-diabetics. There were no serious adverse events (AEs), and no withdrawals due to AEs. Overall comfort assessments of size and fit were 'just right,' and skin comfort in the leg, waist and crotch areas were 'comfortable' or 'very comfortable' for both products.
CONCLUSIONS: In-use 14-day testing demonstrated few statistical differences between experimental product with unique odor neutralizing technology and currently marketed product for skin assessments and comfort. Both products were comfortable and well-tolerated.