Devices Measuring Transepidermal Water Loss: A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties

Overview

Journal Skin Res Technol

Specialty Biomedical Engineering

Date 2022 Apr 12

PMID 35411958

Authors

Tanja Klotz

Abdullah Ibrahim

Guy Maddern

Yugesh Caplash

Marcus Wagstaff

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this review is to examine the reliability and measurement error of devices that measure transepidermal water loss (TEWL).

Introduction: TEWL is a physiological property of skin which increases when the epidermis is damaged. It is, therefore, a commonly utilised measure of skin barrier integrity. Devices measuring TEWL are available as open, semi-open or closed chamber. Studies of reliability examine the consistency of measurement, and/or responsiveness whereas measurement error scores in absolute terms the amount of error due to sources of variation.

Inclusion Criteria: Studies examining the reliability and/or measurement error of TEWL measurement devices were included. Studies that only report on measurement of TEWL outcomes without examination of reliability and/or measurement error were excluded.

Methods: The search strategy aimed to locate published and unpublished studies. Databases searched included PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science, utilising identified keywords and limited to studies in English. Grey literature sources were searched to identify any unpublished documents. Study selection using the inclusion criteria was then assessed by two reviewers for methodological quality utilising the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias tool to assess the reliability and measurement error of outcome measurement instruments.

Results: A total of 22 devices were examined in the 38 included studies. The quality of study design was on average rated as 'Adequate' however reliability and measurement error statistical methods were on average rated as 'Doubtful'.

Discussion And Conclusion: TEWL measurement devices were found to demonstrate good reliability and frequently correlated with other devices. However, measurement error was highly variable but improves under in vitro conditions. Future research should consider risk of bias factors when designing studies.

Citing Articles

Enhancing Transcutaneous Drug Delivery: Advanced Perspectives on Skin Models.

Ribeiro A, Pereira-Leite C, Rosado C, Aruci E, Colley H, Kortekaas Krohn I JID Innov. 2025; 5(2):100340.

PMID: 39925780 PMC: 11803873. DOI: 10.1016/j.xjidi.2024.100340.

Krill oil supplementation improves transepidermal water loss, hydration and elasticity of the skin in healthy adults: Results from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding pilot studies.

Handeland K, Wakeman M, Burri L J Cosmet Dermatol. 2024; 23(12):4285-4294.

PMID: 39169540 PMC: 11626371. DOI: 10.1111/jocd.16513.

Evaluation of in vitro Skin Permeation of Clascoterone From Clascoterone Topical Cream, 1% (w/w).

Yang Y, Wang J, Wanasathop A, Niu M, Ghosh P, Zidan A AAPS PharmSciTech. 2024; 25(6):186.

PMID: 39138712 DOI: 10.1208/s12249-024-02887-7.

An exploratory study of structural and microvascular changes in the skin following electrical shaving using optical coherence topography.

Chaturvedi P, Kroon W, Zanelli G, Worsley P Skin Res Technol. 2024; 30(7):e13830.

PMID: 38951871 PMC: 11217022. DOI: 10.1111/srt.13830.

Electrical Impedance Spectroscopy Quantifies Skin Barrier Function in Organotypic In Vitro Epidermis Models.

van den Brink N, Pardow F, Meesters L, van Vlijmen-Willems I, Rodijk-Olthuis D, Niehues H bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 38562885 PMC: 10983962. DOI: 10.1101/2024.03.18.585587.

References

Van Sam V, Passet J, Maillols H, Guillot B, Guilhou J . TEWL measurement standardization: kinetic and topographic aspects. Acta Derm Venereol. 1994; 74(3):168-70. DOI: 10.2340/0001555574168170. View

Sim D, Kim S, Kim S, Doh I . Portable Skin Analyzers with Simultaneous Measurements of Transepidermal Water Loss, Skin Conductance and Skin Hardness. Sensors (Basel). 2019; 19(18). PMC: 6767198. DOI: 10.3390/s19183857. View

Shah J, Zhai H, Maibach H . Comparative evaporimetry in man. Skin Res Technol. 2005; 11(3):205-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0846.2005.00099.x. View

Hon K, Kung J, Ng W, Tsang K, Cheng N, Leung T . Are skin equipment for assessing childhood eczema any good?. J Dermatolog Treat. 2018; 32(1):45-48. DOI: 10.1080/09546634.2018.1442551. View

Smallwood R, Thomas S . An inexpensive portable monitor for measuring evaporative water loss. Clin Phys Physiol Meas. 1985; 6(2):147-54. DOI: 10.1088/0143-0815/6/2/006. View

Rogiers V . Transepidermal water loss measurements in patch test assessment: the need for standardisation. Curr Probl Dermatol. 1995; 23:152-8. DOI: 10.1159/000424310. View

Logger J, Driessen R, de Jong E, van Erp P . Value of GPSkin for the measurement of skin barrier impairment and for monitoring of rosacea treatment in daily practice. Skin Res Technol. 2020; 27(1):15-23. PMC: 7984125. DOI: 10.1111/srt.12900. View

Fluhr J, Feingold K, Elias P . Transepidermal water loss reflects permeability barrier status: validation in human and rodent in vivo and ex vivo models. Exp Dermatol. 2006; 15(7):483-92. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0625.2006.00437.x. View

Blichmann C, Serup J . Reproducibility and variability of transepidermal water loss measurement. Studies on the Servo Med Evaporimeter. Acta Derm Venereol. 1987; 67(3):206-10. View

10.

Prinsen C, Mokkink L, Bouter L, Alonso J, Patrick D, de Vet H . COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018; 27(5):1147-1157. PMC: 5891568. DOI: 10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3. View

11.

Weigmann H, Ulrich J, Schanzer S, Jacobi U, Schaefer H, Sterry W . Comparison of transepidermal water loss and spectroscopic absorbance to quantify changes of the stratum corneum after tape stripping. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2005; 18(4):180-5. DOI: 10.1159/000085863. View

12.

Cointereau-Chardon S, Caberlotto E, Vicic M, Flament F . Self-recording the skin hydration and Trans-Epidermal Water Loss parameters: A pilot study. Skin Res Technol. 2020; 26(5):713-717. DOI: 10.1111/srt.12862. View

13.

Nilsson G . Measurement of water exchange through skin. Med Biol Eng Comput. 1977; 15(3):209-18. DOI: 10.1007/BF02441040. View

14.

Miteva M, Richter S, Elsner P, Fluhr J . Approaches for optimizing the calibration standard of Tewameter TM 300. Exp Dermatol. 2006; 15(11):904-12. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0625.2006.00482.x. View

15.

Alexander H, Brown S, Danby S, Flohr C . Research Techniques Made Simple: Transepidermal Water Loss Measurement as a Research Tool. J Invest Dermatol. 2018; 138(11):2295-2300.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.jid.2018.09.001. View

16.

Murphrey M, Erickson T, Canter T, Rangel S, Paller A . Can a handheld device accurately measure barrier function in ichthyoses?. Pediatr Dermatol. 2020; 37(5):860-863. DOI: 10.1111/pde.14305. View

17.

Mokkink L, Terwee C, Patrick D, Alonso J, Stratford P, Knol D . The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63(7):737-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006. View

18.

Grinich E, Topham C, Haynes D, Chung J, Latour E, Simpson E . Validation of a novel patient-operated device for measuring skin barrier function in atopic dermatitis. Skin Res Technol. 2021; 27(5):824-830. DOI: 10.1111/srt.13027. View

19.

Barel A, Clarys P . Study of the stratum corneum barrier function by transepidermal water loss measurements: comparison between two commercial instruments: Evaporimeter and Tewameter. Skin Pharmacol. 1995; 8(4):186-95. DOI: 10.1159/000211345. View

20.

Rosado C, Pinto P, Rodrigues L . Comparative assessment of the performance of two generations of Tewameter: TM210 and TM300. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2008; 27(4):237-41. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-2494.2005.00270.x. View