Cited by 89Intramuscular injections and effectsAdvancements in Transdermal Drug DeliveryUltrasound Imaging and Elastography

High frequency ultrasound to assess skin thickness in healthy adults

Van Mulder, T.J.S., de Koeijer, M., Theeten, H., Willems, D., Van Damme, P., Demolder, M., De Meyer, G., Beyers, K.C.L. +1 more·2017·Vaccine

Abstract

Background Intradermal immunization is gaining increased attention due to multiple factors: (1) intradermal (ID) vaccination has been shown to induce improved immunogenicity compared to intramuscular (IM) vaccination; (2) ID vaccination has been shown to have a dose-sparing potential over IM leading to a reduced vaccine cost and an increased availability of vaccines worldwide. However, the currently used Mantoux technique for ID injection is difficult to standardize and requires training. The aim of the study was (1) to assess the epidermal and dermal thickness at the proximal ventral and dorsal forearm (PVF & PDF) and deltoid in adults aged 18-65years (2) to determine the maximum penetration depth and needle characteristics for the development of a platform of medical devices suited for intradermal injection, VAX-ID™. Materials and methods Mean thickness of the PVF, PDF and deltoid were measured using high-frequency ultrasound of healthy adults aged 18-65years. Correlation with gender, age and BMI was assessed using Mann-Whitney U Test, Spearman correlation and Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test, respectively. Results Results showed an overall mean skin thickness of 1.19mm (0.65-1.55mm) at the PVF, 1.44mm (0.78-1.84mm) at the PDF, and 2.12mm (1,16-3.19mm) at the deltoid. Thickness of PVF & PDF and deltoid were significantly different for men vs women (p mean min Conclusion Significant differences in skin thickness were seen for the PVF, PDF and deltoid region for gender, and BMI. Ag…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.07.039

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Van Mulder, T. J. S., de Koeijer, M., Theeten, H., Willems, D., Van Damme, P., Demolder, M., De Meyer, G., Beyers, K. C. L., & Vankerckhoven, V.
Affiliations
University of Antwerp (BE)
Venue
Vaccine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-03
Volume
35
Issue
14
Pages
1810-1815
ISSN
0264-410X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2506030309
Cited by
89
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3
FWCI
5.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Vaccine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Intramuscular injections and effects
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmaceutical Science › Advancements in Transdermal Drug Delivery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Ultrasound Imaging and Elastography
Keywords
skin thickness, intradermal injection, intradermal vaccination, high-frequency ultrasound, epidermal thickness, needle penetration depth, needle length, forearm, deltoid muscle, body mass index
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Analysis of Variance, Body Weights and Measures, Epidermis, Female, Humans, Injections, Intradermal, Male, Middle Aged, Skin, Ultrasonography, Vaccination, Dermis, Young Adult, Healthy Volunteers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review