Skip to content
Heavy Metal Index

Skin care for healthy babies at term: A systematic review of the evidence

This systematic review asked which skin-care practices protect the skin of healthy term babies up to 6 months old.

This systematic review asked which skin-care practices protect the skin of healthy term babies up to 6 months old. It included 26 papers on bathing and cleansing, nappy care, hair and scalp care, dry skin, and massage. From the small set of studies with comparable outcomes, the review found no significant difference between the tested wash products and water, or between the tested baby wipes and water. It also reports some evidence that daily full-body emollient therapy may reduce eczema risk in high-risk infants, and that olive oil or sunflower oil may worsen skin-barrier function. No heavy-metal concentration and no metal limit is a finding of the review. Primary-study chemistry was not re-extracted.

Key numbers

This source does not report a heavy-metal concentration, a metal release value, or a metal limit of its own.

Methods (brief)

Eleven databases were searched for English-language quantitative and qualitative research, mainly 2000-2015, on healthy term babies to 6 months. Two reviewers screened 3062 records and included 26 papers. Primary outcomes were stratum corneum hydration, transepidermal water loss, and skin surface pH. Risk of bias was assessed for the quantitative studies. Meta-analysis was limited by inconsistent outcomes, sites, and time points.

Evidence fitness

These data support The review’s own conclusion that, in the few comparisons with shared outcomes, tested wash products and tested baby wipes were not shown to differ from water alone on the skin outcomes used; The review’s own statement that evidence on hair and scalp care and on baby massage was absent, and that outcome measures were too inconsistent for a broad meta-analysis.

They do not support Any heavy-metal concentration; Any heavy-metal regulatory limit. No metal concentration and no metal limit is a finding of this review; Re-extraction of contaminant or sensitization numbers from the 26 included primary studies. Those studies were not re-extracted here.

Limitations

The file is an unedited accepted manuscript, so volume and pages are not printed and the year used here is the 2017 acceptance date. Outcome inconsistency blocked most meta-analysis. The search window was set by the funder. Authors disclose advisory and trial-funding ties to a baby-product manufacturer. A later sentence says seven studies appear in the qualitative characteristics table, while the abstract counts six qualitative studies plus one mixed-methods study.

Update history

No substantive edit history is available in this build. The full commit record is available in git.