248 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 27637867)
1. Comparison of two series of non-invasive instruments used for the skin physiological properties measurements: the DermaLab
Hua W; Fan LM; Dai R; Luan M; Xie H; Li AQ; Li L
Skin Res Technol; 2017 Feb; 23(1):70-78. PubMed ID: 27637867
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Comparison of two series of non-invasive instruments used for the skin physiological properties measurements: the 'Soft Plus' from Callegari S.p.A vs. the series of detectors from Courage & Khazaka.
Hua W; Xie H; Chen T; Li L
Skin Res Technol; 2014 Feb; 20(1):74-80. PubMed ID: 23772826
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. The investigation of the skin biophysical measurements focusing on daily activities, skin care habits, and gender differences.
Hadi H; Awadh AI; Hanif NM; Md Sidik NF; Mohd Rani MR; Suhaimi MS
Skin Res Technol; 2016 May; 22(2):247-54. PubMed ID: 26333416
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. A closed unventilated chamber for the measurement of transepidermal water loss.
Nuutinen J; Alanen E; Autio P; Lahtinen MR; Harvima I; Lahtinen T
Skin Res Technol; 2003 May; 9(2):85-9. PubMed ID: 12709124
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A cross-sectional study of variations in the biophysical parameters of skin among healthy volunteers.
Mehta HH; Nikam VV; Jaiswal CR; Mehta HB
Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol; 2018; 84(4):521. PubMed ID: 29491191
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Study of the stratum corneum barrier function by transepidermal water loss measurements: comparison between two commercial instruments: Evaporimeter and Tewameter.
Barel AO; Clarys P
Skin Pharmacol; 1995; 8(4):186-95. PubMed ID: 7488395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. The seasonal variation in skin hydration, sebum, scaliness, brightness and elasticity in Korean females.
Nam GW; Baek JH; Koh JS; Hwang JK
Skin Res Technol; 2015 Feb; 21(1):1-8. PubMed ID: 24528115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Comparison of closed chamber and open chamber evaporimetry.
Cohen JC; Hartman DG; Garofalo MJ; Basehoar A; Raynor B; Ashbrenner E; Akin FJ
Skin Res Technol; 2009 Feb; 15(1):51-4. PubMed ID: 19152579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Validation of the VapoMeter, a closed unventilated chamber system to assess transepidermal water loss vs. the open chamber Tewameter.
De Paepe K; Houben E; Adam R; Wiesemann F; Rogiers V
Skin Res Technol; 2005 Feb; 11(1):61-9. PubMed ID: 15691261
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Side-by-side comparison of an open-chamber (TM 300) and a closed-chamber (Vapometer™) transepidermal water loss meter.
Steiner M; Aikman-Green S; Prescott GJ; Dick FD
Skin Res Technol; 2011 Aug; 17(3):366-72. PubMed ID: 21492241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Mechanical properties of the skin: a comparison between two suction cup methods.
Pedersen L; Hansen B; Jemec GB
Skin Res Technol; 2003 May; 9(2):111-5. PubMed ID: 12709128
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Measurement of elasticity and transepidermal water loss rate of burn scars with the Dermalab(®).
Anthonissen M; Daly D; Fieuws S; Massagé P; Van Brussel M; Vranckx J; Van den Kerckhove E
Burns; 2013 May; 39(3):420-8. PubMed ID: 23000371
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Transepidermal water loss reflects permeability barrier status: validation in human and rodent in vivo and ex vivo models.
Fluhr JW; Feingold KR; Elias PM
Exp Dermatol; 2006 Jul; 15(7):483-92. PubMed ID: 16761956
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of a hand-held evaporimeter (VapoMeter) for the measurement of transepidermal water loss in healthy dogs.
Lau-Gillard PJ; Hill PB; Chesney CJ; Budleigh C; Immonen A
Vet Dermatol; 2010 Apr; 21(2):136-45. PubMed ID: 19961567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of the measuring efficacy of transepidermal water loss of a reasonably priced, portable closed-chamber system device H4500 with that of rather expensive, conventional devices such as Tewameter
Kikuchi K; Asano M; Tagami H; Kato M; Aiba S
Skin Res Technol; 2017 Nov; 23(4):597-601. PubMed ID: 28517733
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Skin physiology in men and women: in vivo evaluation of 300 people including TEWL, SC hydration, sebum content and skin surface pH.
Luebberding S; Krueger N; Kerscher M
Int J Cosmet Sci; 2013 Oct; 35(5):477-83. PubMed ID: 23713991
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Measuring transepidermal water loss: a comparative in vivo study of condenser-chamber, unventilated-chamber and open-chamber systems.
Farahmand S; Tien L; Hui X; Maibach HI
Skin Res Technol; 2009 Nov; 15(4):392-8. PubMed ID: 19832948
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparative evaporimetry in man.
Shah JH; Zhai H; Maibach HI
Skin Res Technol; 2005 Aug; 11(3):205-8. PubMed ID: 15998333
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Closed-chamber transepidermal water loss measurement: microclimate, calibration and performance.
Imhof RE; De Jesus ME; Xiao P; Ciortea LI; Berg EP
Int J Cosmet Sci; 2009 Apr; 31(2):97-118. PubMed ID: 19175433
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Comparison of biophysical properties of skin measured by using non-invasive techniques in the KM mice following 595 nm pulsed dye, 1064 nm Q-Switched Nd:YAG and 1320 nm Nd:YAG laser non-ablative rejuvenation.
Dang Y; Ren Q; Li W; Yang Q; Zhang J
Skin Res Technol; 2006 May; 12(2):119-25. PubMed ID: 16626386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
