Cited by 73Skin Protection and AgingCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Managementmelanin and skin pigmentation

Sunscreens and melanoma: the future looks bright

Open access
Diffey, B.L.·2005·British Journal of Dermatology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of observational case-control studies have demonstrated no association between sunscreen use and the development of malignant melanoma. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether this observation is to be expected given the period during which the case-control studies were conducted, the sunscreens prevalent at that time, and how sunscreen is used and applied in practice. To predict whether modern sunscreens are likely to be effective as a preventative agent in melanoma. METHODS: The protection against solar ultraviolet radiation delivered by sunscreens available prior to the early 1990s (when the data used in most published case-control studies were collected) was estimated by combining their absorption properties with the amount applied in a way reflecting common usage. Similar estimates were made for the protection offered by modern sunscreens. RESULTS: It is not surprising that case-control studies have failed to find any association between sunscreen use and the risk of melanoma when consideration is given to the sunscreens in common usage at the time and the way in which sunscreen is applied in practice. Modern high Sun Protection Factor, broad-spectrum sunscreens, on the other hand, can be expected to be an effective measure in helping to prevent melanoma compared with sunscreens typical of those used 10-20 years ago. CONCLUSIONS: It is reasonable to suppose that the improvement in performance of modern sunscreens will lead to a worthwhile benefit as a preventative agent against melanoma, although these benefits may not be seen for several decades.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2005.06729.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Diffey et al. suggested that most sunscreens in the past offered no or little UVA protection.

    “Diffey et al. summarized this well in suggesting that most sunscreens in the past offered no or little UVA protection (50).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Diffey, B. L.
Affiliations
Newcastle upon Tyne Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Diffey, B.L.
Venue
British Journal of Dermatology
Published
2005-08
Volume
153
Issue
2
Pages
378-381
ISSN
  • 0007-0963 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2133
OpenAlex
W1965933423
Cited by
73
References
2
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
FWCI
9.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Dermatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Skin Protection and Aging
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › melanin and skin pigmentation
Keywords
sunscreen use, melanoma, melanoma prevention, UV protection, sun protection factor, broad-spectrum sunscreen, case-control study limitations
MeSH terms
Absorption, Humans, Melanoma, Neoplasms, Radiation-Induced, Skin Neoplasms, Sunscreening Agents, Ultraviolet Rays

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