This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Barrier cream article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I added Shielding lotions are designed to create a barrier against irritants.[2]" However, the source is not a review. Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 06:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I am removing the sporting section which had two refs. The first was totally unacceptable and the 2nd was one study of 20 athletes. Using 10 of them as placebo group showed that one athlete in the placebo group got athlete's foot...something like that...at any rate not worth a mention for a medical article. Gandydancer ( talk) 11:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I removed the marketing section which had a single ref (a press release which doesn't qualify as a reliable source) and implied that the terminology "shielding lotion" resulted from a marketing campaign. A study from 1965 will illustrate the usage long before any marketing campaign [1] Dr. James Schultz ( talk) 15:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
helping to reduce the effect of skin contact with contaminants. Barrier creams are used to protect employees against work-related skin hazards". You can see the excerpt from the search results at: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22a+barrier+cream+is%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C5. I'm reverting your edit. Dr. James Schultz ( talk) 18:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
References
Where does the source verify the entire sentence? QuackGuru ( talk) 18:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
According to this source the Skin MD Natural Shielding Lotion is only a " daily face lotion with sunscreen." Therefore, there are shielding lotions that do not form a protective layer, and do not provide a protective layer and not not bond with dead skin cells or provide an additional chemical layer to the skin. Using Wikipedia for marketing purposes like this is over. Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 22:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a PR campaign? QuackGuru ( talk) 02:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I found this paper to be very helpful [3] If you don't have time for a full read, see the intro and the check list at the bottom. Gandydancer ( talk) 13:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
"Recently, barrier creams have been marketed for the prevention of hand hygiene-related irritant contact dermatitis. Such products are absorbed into the superficial layers of the epidermis and are designed to form a protective layer that is not removed by standard hand cleansing. Evidence of the efficacy of such products, however, is equivocal." [4] I think this can be clarfied in the article. Not sure how to word it. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The entire Barrier cream article is one big opinion piece. It is completely lacking in neutrality and espouses negative undertones throughout the entire article. Despite the opinion of a certain editor who has taken expansive liberties with the article, there are legitimate and effective uses for barrier creams in the treatment of various dermatological conditions.
For instance,instead of stating that barrier creams have been proven effective in the treatment of diaper rash, the author argues against the use of barrier creams, saying "disposable nappies are effective in drawing fluid away from the skin and can be changed less frequently in the absence of stools, making regular application of barrier creams unnecessary in most children." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. James Schultz ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, the article is neither encyclopedic nor accurate. As a dermatologist, I find the lack of accuracy in the article bothersome, but my attempts to repair it in the past have been met by reverts and challenges every step of the way by the editor responsible for the problems with the article. The truth is, the article needs a complete rewrite by someone without an agenda, someone with actual experience in the industry.
Another example is the assertion that a barrier cream is "also known as a shielding lotion". This is neither accurate nor stated in the cited reference. A shielding lotion does create a barrier against skin irritants, but it is a TYPE of barrier cream and not all barrier creams would qualify as a shielding lotion. A shielding lotion also has a moisturizing effect, but many barrier creams do not. Saying that a barrier cream is "also known as a shielding lotion" is like saying tool is "also known as a cordless drill". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. James Schultz ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
A discussion has been started here
Dr. James Schultz ( talk) 17:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)The source cited to verify the statement that a barrier cream is "also known as a shielding lotion" ( https://books.google.com/books?id=mdUJAQAAMAAJ&q=shielding+lotion&dq=shielding+lotion&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFEQ6AEwB2oVChMIk6-xlYGgyAIVATaICh0NDw90) says no such thing.
The assertion that "the efficacy of barrier creams remains disputed" comes from a 2002 study conducted by the Dept of Dermatology at the University of California. Yet a later article published by Evidence-Based Nursing and recorded in the British Medical Journal says that "some barrier creams and moisturizers are effective for irritant contact dermatitis" ( http://ebn.bmj.com/content/9/3/74.extract)
The paragraph that reads "As early as 1965 the term shielding lotion was used. In 2005, the Internet marketing agency Expansion Plus began promoting the term shielding lotion in a highly successful campaign that relied on planting information in social media so that it would be picked up and spread virally." has nothing to do with the article and cites a press release and marketing pamphlet. (two of the 16 "reliable sources" you mention - You do realize press releases and promotional pamphlets don't qualify as "reliable sources")
The biggest problem with the article is its complete and utter lack of neutrality. Show me one positive assertion in the entire article, just one that discusses effective treatment of a skin condition with a barrier cream. Dr. James Schultz ( talk) 20:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
efficacy of barrier creams remains disputed" line could easily be supported by a more recent review. This one (2014) says: "
The effectiveness of BCs remains controversial and is an important issue for further studies and evaluation. [...] In an international survey of expert dermatologists, 98% of those interviewed considered BCs to be no more effective than bland emollients in the prevention of CD." There are cautiously positive aspects of the reviews I cited that should be incorporated into the article, though. KateWishing ( talk) 20:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Soupvector: You're right. The article does have issues and really needs to be expanded, but I shouldn't have tagged it for a complete rewrite. I've removed the tag. Dr. James Schultz ( talk) 23:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The majority consensus here is that the term "shielding lotion" does not belong in this article and any connection is tenuous at best. QuackGuru has continued to add shielding lotion throughout the article despite the previous discussions that conclude the term does not belong in an article about barrier creams. Dr. James Schultz ( talk) 17:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Quote: (Nursery Management & Production - Volume 22 - Page 76, 2006)
AT the same time there are google books cites for the term dated 1966. So I guess it is a generic marketing term which may mean whatever advertizer wants to. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, the language Skin MD Natural is a new shielding lotion designed to create an invisible, protective barrier that helps keep harmful chemicals out and keeps natural moisture in. Manufactured by 21st Century Formulations. (my bolface) also seems to indicate it is a generic term. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Still older, 1964 ref indicates that "shielding lotion" use to be a short for "sun-shielding lotion": Shielding the skin with light clothing, or in some instances the application of shielding lotions or creams, will prevent painful or even serious burns. . Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, pardon my French: "Certaines sont qualifiées de « shielding lotions » ou lotions protectrices ; elles ont un double rôle d'hydratation et de maintien du bouclier protecteur de la peau par la présence de substances hydratantes efficaces, de polymères filmogènes et ..." Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I would also like to notice the paucity of hits in google books for the term, suggesting that the term is rather non-distinguished. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Just the same, one may find plenty of market babble with a slightly different term, "shield lotion". Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The word "also" [5] can be interpreted as a WP:SYN violation. QuackGuru ( talk) 22:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
It's a moot point, Staszek Lem. I was speaking solely about local usage in my area. It was not an attempt to promote the idea here. Dr. James Schultz ( talk) 21:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with this recent change to the lead to include shielding lotion as one of the other names. "Barrier creams are known by many other names, including skin protective creams, pre-work creams, antisolvent gels.[2] and shielding lotion.[3]" QuackGuru ( talk) 22:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The text should be in the body first. QuackGuru ( talk) 07:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I thought emollients was correct. It has been changed to occlusives. User:Wwallacee, I do not understand why it was changed. The article should be written for the general reader. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Barrier cream article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I added Shielding lotions are designed to create a barrier against irritants.[2]" However, the source is not a review. Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 06:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I am removing the sporting section which had two refs. The first was totally unacceptable and the 2nd was one study of 20 athletes. Using 10 of them as placebo group showed that one athlete in the placebo group got athlete's foot...something like that...at any rate not worth a mention for a medical article. Gandydancer ( talk) 11:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I removed the marketing section which had a single ref (a press release which doesn't qualify as a reliable source) and implied that the terminology "shielding lotion" resulted from a marketing campaign. A study from 1965 will illustrate the usage long before any marketing campaign [1] Dr. James Schultz ( talk) 15:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
helping to reduce the effect of skin contact with contaminants. Barrier creams are used to protect employees against work-related skin hazards". You can see the excerpt from the search results at: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22a+barrier+cream+is%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C5. I'm reverting your edit. Dr. James Schultz ( talk) 18:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
References
Where does the source verify the entire sentence? QuackGuru ( talk) 18:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
According to this source the Skin MD Natural Shielding Lotion is only a " daily face lotion with sunscreen." Therefore, there are shielding lotions that do not form a protective layer, and do not provide a protective layer and not not bond with dead skin cells or provide an additional chemical layer to the skin. Using Wikipedia for marketing purposes like this is over. Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk) 22:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
This is a PR campaign? QuackGuru ( talk) 02:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I found this paper to be very helpful [3] If you don't have time for a full read, see the intro and the check list at the bottom. Gandydancer ( talk) 13:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
"Recently, barrier creams have been marketed for the prevention of hand hygiene-related irritant contact dermatitis. Such products are absorbed into the superficial layers of the epidermis and are designed to form a protective layer that is not removed by standard hand cleansing. Evidence of the efficacy of such products, however, is equivocal." [4] I think this can be clarfied in the article. Not sure how to word it. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The entire Barrier cream article is one big opinion piece. It is completely lacking in neutrality and espouses negative undertones throughout the entire article. Despite the opinion of a certain editor who has taken expansive liberties with the article, there are legitimate and effective uses for barrier creams in the treatment of various dermatological conditions.
For instance,instead of stating that barrier creams have been proven effective in the treatment of diaper rash, the author argues against the use of barrier creams, saying "disposable nappies are effective in drawing fluid away from the skin and can be changed less frequently in the absence of stools, making regular application of barrier creams unnecessary in most children." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. James Schultz ( talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, the article is neither encyclopedic nor accurate. As a dermatologist, I find the lack of accuracy in the article bothersome, but my attempts to repair it in the past have been met by reverts and challenges every step of the way by the editor responsible for the problems with the article. The truth is, the article needs a complete rewrite by someone without an agenda, someone with actual experience in the industry.
Another example is the assertion that a barrier cream is "also known as a shielding lotion". This is neither accurate nor stated in the cited reference. A shielding lotion does create a barrier against skin irritants, but it is a TYPE of barrier cream and not all barrier creams would qualify as a shielding lotion. A shielding lotion also has a moisturizing effect, but many barrier creams do not. Saying that a barrier cream is "also known as a shielding lotion" is like saying tool is "also known as a cordless drill". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. James Schultz ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
A discussion has been started here
Dr. James Schultz ( talk) 17:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)The source cited to verify the statement that a barrier cream is "also known as a shielding lotion" ( https://books.google.com/books?id=mdUJAQAAMAAJ&q=shielding+lotion&dq=shielding+lotion&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFEQ6AEwB2oVChMIk6-xlYGgyAIVATaICh0NDw90) says no such thing.
The assertion that "the efficacy of barrier creams remains disputed" comes from a 2002 study conducted by the Dept of Dermatology at the University of California. Yet a later article published by Evidence-Based Nursing and recorded in the British Medical Journal says that "some barrier creams and moisturizers are effective for irritant contact dermatitis" ( http://ebn.bmj.com/content/9/3/74.extract)
The paragraph that reads "As early as 1965 the term shielding lotion was used. In 2005, the Internet marketing agency Expansion Plus began promoting the term shielding lotion in a highly successful campaign that relied on planting information in social media so that it would be picked up and spread virally." has nothing to do with the article and cites a press release and marketing pamphlet. (two of the 16 "reliable sources" you mention - You do realize press releases and promotional pamphlets don't qualify as "reliable sources")
The biggest problem with the article is its complete and utter lack of neutrality. Show me one positive assertion in the entire article, just one that discusses effective treatment of a skin condition with a barrier cream. Dr. James Schultz ( talk) 20:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
efficacy of barrier creams remains disputed" line could easily be supported by a more recent review. This one (2014) says: "
The effectiveness of BCs remains controversial and is an important issue for further studies and evaluation. [...] In an international survey of expert dermatologists, 98% of those interviewed considered BCs to be no more effective than bland emollients in the prevention of CD." There are cautiously positive aspects of the reviews I cited that should be incorporated into the article, though. KateWishing ( talk) 20:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
@ Soupvector: You're right. The article does have issues and really needs to be expanded, but I shouldn't have tagged it for a complete rewrite. I've removed the tag. Dr. James Schultz ( talk) 23:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The majority consensus here is that the term "shielding lotion" does not belong in this article and any connection is tenuous at best. QuackGuru has continued to add shielding lotion throughout the article despite the previous discussions that conclude the term does not belong in an article about barrier creams. Dr. James Schultz ( talk) 17:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Quote: (Nursery Management & Production - Volume 22 - Page 76, 2006)
AT the same time there are google books cites for the term dated 1966. So I guess it is a generic marketing term which may mean whatever advertizer wants to. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, the language Skin MD Natural is a new shielding lotion designed to create an invisible, protective barrier that helps keep harmful chemicals out and keeps natural moisture in. Manufactured by 21st Century Formulations. (my bolface) also seems to indicate it is a generic term. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Still older, 1964 ref indicates that "shielding lotion" use to be a short for "sun-shielding lotion": Shielding the skin with light clothing, or in some instances the application of shielding lotions or creams, will prevent painful or even serious burns. . Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, pardon my French: "Certaines sont qualifiées de « shielding lotions » ou lotions protectrices ; elles ont un double rôle d'hydratation et de maintien du bouclier protecteur de la peau par la présence de substances hydratantes efficaces, de polymères filmogènes et ..." Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I would also like to notice the paucity of hits in google books for the term, suggesting that the term is rather non-distinguished. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Just the same, one may find plenty of market babble with a slightly different term, "shield lotion". Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The word "also" [5] can be interpreted as a WP:SYN violation. QuackGuru ( talk) 22:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
It's a moot point, Staszek Lem. I was speaking solely about local usage in my area. It was not an attempt to promote the idea here. Dr. James Schultz ( talk) 21:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm fine with this recent change to the lead to include shielding lotion as one of the other names. "Barrier creams are known by many other names, including skin protective creams, pre-work creams, antisolvent gels.[2] and shielding lotion.[3]" QuackGuru ( talk) 22:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The text should be in the body first. QuackGuru ( talk) 07:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I thought emollients was correct. It has been changed to occlusives. User:Wwallacee, I do not understand why it was changed. The article should be written for the general reader. QuackGuru ( talk) 16:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)