The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Current sunscreen controversies: a critical review
Open accessAbstract
Background/purpose:Sunscreens are believed to be a valuable tool in providing photoprotection against the detrimental effects of UV radiation, a known carcinogen. However, a number of controversies have developed regarding their safety and efficacy. This review summarizes the relevant studies surrounding these controversies. Methods:Evidence of the prevention of skin cancer, an oft‐cited reason for sunscreen use, was examined as it pertains to squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma and melanoma. We also reviewed studies examining the effects of sunscreen on the synthesis of vitamin D, an essential nutrient whose role in health and disease continues to grow. Lastly, we analyzed studies surrounding the safety and toxicity of oxybenzone, retinyl palmitate and nanoparticles of zinc oxide (ZnO) and titanium dioxide (TiO 2). Results:The overwhelming majority of available data is drawn from studies conducted using antiquated sunscreen formulations. Nonetheless, our research revealed that topical use of sunscreen protects against squamous cell carcinoma, does not cause vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency in practice and has not been demonstrated to adversely affect the health of humans. Conclusion:Given the established benefits of UV protection, the use of sunscreens remains an important part of an overall photoprotective strategy. Future sunscreens with improved formulation should ideally offer superior protection. With increased usage of sunscreen by the public, continuous and vigilant monitoring of the overall safety of future products is also needed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Meta-analysis of risk factors for cutaneous melanoma: II. Sun exposure
Gandini, S., Sera, F., Cattaruzza, M. S., Pasquini, P., Picconi, O., Boyle, P., & Melchi, C. F. (2005) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2004.10.016 · Cited by 1,266
Green, A., Williams, G., Nèale, R., Hart, V., Leslie, D., Parsons, P., Marks, G. C., Gaffney, P., Battistutta, D., Frost, C., et al. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(98)12168-2 · Cited by 976
Childhood sun exposure as a risk factor for melanoma: a systematic review of epidemiologic studies
Whiteman, D. C., Whiteman, C. A., & Green, A. C. (2001) · Cancer Causes & Control · doi:10.1023/a:1008980919928 · Cited by 633
Sunburns and risk of cutaneous melanoma: does age matter? A comprehensive meta-analysis
Dennis, L. K., Vanbeek, M. J., Beane Freeman, L. E., Smith, B. J., Dawson, D. V., & Coughlin, J. A. (2008) · Annals of Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2008.04.006 · Cited by 370
Janjua, N. R., Mogensen, B., Andersson, A.-M., Petersen, J. H., Henriksen, M., Skakkebæk, N. E., & Wulf, H. C. (2004) · Journal of Investigative Dermatology · doi:10.1111/j.0022-202x.2004.22725.x · Cited by 338
A pilot study on the percutaneous absorption of microfine titanium dioxide from sunscreens
Tan, M., Commens, C. A., Burnett, L., & Snitch, P. J. (1996) · Australasian Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1111/j.1440-0960.1996.tb01050.x · Cited by 197
Huncharek, M., & Kupelnick, B. (2002) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.92.7.1173 · Cited by 193
Case-Control Study of Malignant Melanoma in Washington State
White, E., Kirkpatrick, C. S., & Lee, J. A. H. (1994) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117092 · Cited by 152
Zinc and titanium oxides: promising UV-absorbers but what influence do they have on the intact skin?
LANSDOWN, A. B. G., & TAYLOR, A. (1997) · International Journal of Cosmetic Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-2494.1997.tb00180.x · Cited by 78
Pirot, F., Millet, J., Kalia, Y. N., & Humbert, P. (2009) · Skin Pharmacology · doi:10.1159/000211423 · Cited by 73
Cited by
Review of Natural Compounds for Potential Skin Cancer Treatment
Chinembiri, T., Du Plessis, L., Gerber, M., Hamman, J., & Du Plessis, J. (2014) · Molecules · doi:10.3390/molecules190811679 · Cited by 270
Mancebo, S. E. (2014) · doi:10.1016/j.det.2014.03.011 · Cited by 119
Towards symmetry driven and nature inspired UV filter design
Horbury, M. D., Holt, E. L., Mouterde, L. M. M., Balaguer, P., Cebrián, J., Blasco, L., Allais, F., & Stavros, V. G. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-12719-z · Cited by 73
Lawrence, K. P., Gacesa, R., Long, P. F., & Young, A. R. (2018) · British Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1111/bjd.16125 · Cited by 69
Metadata
- Authors
- Burnett, M. E., & Wang, S. Q.
- Venue
- Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-03-10
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 58-67
- ISSN
- 0905-4383 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-0781
- OpenAlex
- W1511342089
- Cited by
- 284
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 30.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Current sunscreen controversies: a critical review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-0781.2011.00557.x
- The paper
- Burnett, M. E., & Wang, S. Q. (2011). Current sunscreen controversies: a critical review. Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0781.2011.00557.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
