The relationship among objectively assessed vulvar erythema, skin sensitivity, genital sensitivity, and self-reported facial skin redness

Journal of Applied Research

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 272-281

  Farage, Miranda ^a   Bowtell, Philip ^a   Katsarou, Alexandra ^b  

^a PROCTER AND GAMBLE COMPANY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Greece)

Author keywords

Facial erythema; Facial sensitivity; Genital sensitivity; Sensitive skin; Vulvar erythema

Indexed keywords

COSMETIC;

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATOPY; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DIAPER DERMATITIS; ERYTHEMA; FACE; FEMALE; GENITAL SYSTEM; HUMAN; MENSTRUATION; POST HOC ANALYSIS; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SELF REPORT; SKIN REDNESS; SKIN SENSITIVITY; VULVA DISEASE;

EID: 33846199192     PISSN: 1537064X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Berardesca E, Maibach HI. Sensitive Skin. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2006.
2. Farage M, Katsarou A, Maibach H. Sensory, clinical and physiological factors in sensitive skin: a review. Contact Derm. 2006;55:1-14.
3. Marriott M, Holmes J, Peters L, et al. The complex problem of sensitive skin. Contact Derm. 2005;53:93-99.
4. Willis CM, Shaw S, De Lacharriere O, et al. Sensitive skin: an epidemiological study. Br J Dermatol. 2001;145:258-263.
5. Jourdain R, Lacharriere O, Bastien P, Maibach HI. Ethnic variations in self-perceived sensitive skin: epidemiological survey. Contact Derm. 2002;46:162-169.
6. Vie K, Pons-Guiraud A, Dupuy P, Maibach H. Tolerance profile of a sterile moisturizer and moisturizing cleanser in irritated and sensitive skin. Am J Contact Dermat. 2000;11:161-164.
7. Seidenari S, Francomano M, Mantovani L. Baseline biophysical parameters in subjects with sensitive skin. Contact Derm. 1998;38:311-315.
8. Issachar N, Gall Y, Borell MT, Poelman MC. pH measurements during lactic acid stinging test in normal and sensitive skin. Contact Derm. 1997;36:152-155.
9. Marriott M, Whittle E, Basketter DA. Facial variations in sensory responses. Contact Derm. 2003;49:227-231.
10. Aramaki J, Kawana S, Effendy I, et al. Differences of skin irritation between Japanese and European women. Br J Dermatol. 2002;146:1052-1056.
11. Green BG. Measurement of sensory irritation of the skin. Am J Contact Dermat. 2000;11:170-180.
12. Farage M, Maibach HI. The vulvar epithelium differs from the skin: implications for cutaneous testing to address topical vulvar exposures. Contact Derm. 2004;51:201-209.
13. Farage MA. Vulvar susceptibility to contact irritants and allergens: a review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2005;272:167-172.
14. Farage MA, Maibach HI, eds. The Vulva: Anatomy, Physiology and Pathology. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Publisher; 2006.
15. Britz MB, Maibach HI. Human cutaneous vulvar reactivity to irritants. Contact Derm. 1979;5:375-377.
16. Elsner P, Wilhelm D, Maibach HI. Sodium lauryl sulfate-induced irritant contact dermatitis in vulvar and forearm skin of premenopausal and postmenopausal women. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1990;23:648-652.
17. Farage M, Warren R, Wang-Weigand S. The vulva is relatively insensitive to menses-induced irritation. Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2005;24:243-246.
18. Farage M, Katsarou A, Tsagroni E, et al. Cutaneous and sensory effects of two sanitary pads with distinct surface materials: a randomized prospective trial. J Toxicol Cutaneous Ocul Toxicol. 2005;24:227-241.
19. Hanke-Baier P, Johannigmann J, Levin RJ, Wagner G. Evaluation of vaginal and perineal area during the use of external sanitary protection throughout the menstrual cycle. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1994;73:486-491.
20. Farage M, Enane N, Baldwin S, et al. A clinical method for testing the safety of catamenial pads. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1997;44:260-264.
21. Farage MA, Stadler A, Elsner P, Maibach HI. Safety evaluation of modern hygiene pads: two decades of use. Female Patient. 2004;29:23-30.
22. Magnusson BM, Koskinen LD. Effects of topical application of capsaicin to human skin: a comparison of effects evaluated by visual assessment, sensation registration, skin blood flow and cutaneous impedance measurements. Acta Derm Venereol. 1996;76:129-132.
23. Ollmar S, Nyrén M, Nicander I, Emtestam L. Electrical impedance compared with other non-invasive bioengineering techniques and visual scoring for detection of irritation in human skin. Br J Dermatol. 1994;130:29-36.
24. Fullerton A, Rode B, Serup J. Skin irritation typing and grading based on laser Doppler perfusion imaging. Skin Res Technol. 2002;8:23-31.
25. Spoo J, Wigger-Alberti W, Berndt U, et al. Skin cleansers: three test protocols for the assessment of irritancy ranking. Acta Derm Venereol. 2002;82:13-17.
26. Wigger-Alberti W, Hinnen U, Elsner P. Predictive testing of metalworking fluids: a comparison of 2 cumulative human irritation models and correlation with epidemiological data. Contact Derm. 1997;36:14-20.
27. Farage MA. Are we reaching the limits or our ability to detect skin effects with our current testing and measuring methods for consumer products? Contact Derm. 2005;52:297-303.
28. Simion FA, Rhein LD, Morrison BM Jr, et al. Self-perceived sensory responses to soap and synthetic detergent bars correlate with clinical signs of irritation. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1995;32:205-211.