Skin cleansing and topical product use in patients with epidermolysis bullosa: Results from a multicenter database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) comprises a group of inherited skin blistering diseases. There is currently no cure, and management includes skin protection and prevention of infection. To date, there has been no systematic investigation of home skin care practices among EB patients on a multicenter scale. METHODS: This cross-sectional, observational study included data collected from patients with EB enrolled in the Epidermolysis Bullosa Characterization and Clinical Outcomes Database (EBCCOD) who provided answers to a patient-directed questionnaire between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017. RESULTS: Of 202 respondents, 130 (64.4%) had dystrophic EB, 51 (25.2%) had EB simplex, 21 (7.4%) had junctional EB, 3 (1.5%) had Kindler syndrome, and 3 (1.5%) had an unspecified subtype. Seventy-eight patients reported cleansing in plain water only (39%). Of those who used an additive in their cleansing water, 75 (57%) added salt, 71 (54%) added bleach, 36 (27%) added vinegar, and 34 (26%) endorsed the use of an "other" additive (multiple additives possible). Reported concentrations of additives ranged widely from 0.002% sodium hypochlorite and 0.002% acetic acid solutions, which are thought to have negligible effects on microbes, to 0.09% sodium hypochlorite and 0.156% acetic acid, concentrations shown to be cytotoxic. One hundred eighty-eight patients answered questions regarding topical product use (93%). Of those, 131 reported topical antimicrobial use (70%). Mupirocin and bacitracin were the most commonly reported topical antibiotics (59, 58 [31.4%, 30.9%], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the variety of skin care routines and frequent use of topical antimicrobials among EB patients and have potential implications for antibiotic resistance. The reported range of bleach and vinegar additives to cleansing water, including cytotoxic concentrations, emphasizes the need for clear and optimized skin cleansing recommendations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".