Abstract
Background
European roundtable meeting recommendations on bathing and cleansing of infants were published in 2009; a second meeting was held to update and expand these recommendations in light of new evidence and the continued need to address uncertainty surrounding this aspect of routine care.
Methods
The previous roundtable recommendations concerning infant cleansing, bathing, and use of liquid cleansers were critically reviewed and updated and the quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. New recommendations were developed to provide guidance on diaper care and the use of emollients. A series of recommendations was formulated to characterize the attributes of ideal liquid cleansers, wipes, and emollients.
Results
Newborn bathing can be performed without harming the infant, provided basic safety procedures are followed. Water alone or appropriately designed liquid cleansers can be used during bathing without impairing the skin maturation process. The diaper area should be kept clean and dry; from birth, the diaper area may be gently cleansed with cotton balls/squares and water or by using appropriately designed wipes. Appropriately formulated emollients can be used to maintain and enhance skin barrier function. Appropriately formulated baby oils can be applied for physiologic (transitory) skin dryness and in small quantities to the bath. Baby products that are left on should be formulated to buffer and maintain babies’ skin surface at approximately pH 5.5, and the formulations and their constituent ingredients should have undergone an extensive program of safety testing. Formulations should be effectively preserved; products containing harsh surfactants, such as sodium lauryl sulfate, should be avoided.
Conclusion
Health care professionals can use these recommendations as the basis of their advice to parents.
Cleansing is fundamental to the care of all babies; there is growing realization that suboptimal routine skin care may alter the balance of genetic and environmental factors to transform the healthy epidermis into one associated with barrier dysfunction and attendant disease, such as atopic dermatitis (AD) 1. Therefore there is a need for evidence‐based recommendations to guide health care professionals and parents in this critical aspect of care. This is particularly pertinent in view of confusion that parents and health care workers express regarding the use of water alone for bathing versus the use of bathing products 2.
The recommendations of the first European roundtable meeting were published in 2009 3; a second meeting was convened to review and update these recommendations in light of new data and to expand their scope to include diaper care and the application of emollients and oils to healthy skin and to assess the strength of recommendations using an established grading system.
Methods
An expert panel, all of whose members have expertise in infant skin care, reviewed the 2009 recommendations 3. A comprehensive review of published literature was conducted before the meeting to identify articles published since the previous meeting that might inform the recommendations update.
The panel evaluated the recommendations to determine whether to retain, revise, or remove each. The evidence base for each recommendation was assessed and the strength of each recommendation was assigned using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system (Table 1) 4. Consensus on the wording of each recommendation was required to be unanimous; consensus on the proposed rating of evidence or recommendation was reached when the majority (>7) was in favor.
Table 1.
Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation System of Evaluating Quality of Evidence 4
| Grade | |
|---|---|
| Evidence | |
| High quality | Further research is very unlikely to change confidence in the estimate of effect |
| Moderate quality | Further research is likely to have an important effect on confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate |
| Low quality | Further research is very likely to have an important effect on confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate |
| Very low quality | Any estimate of effect is very uncertain |
| Recommendation | |
| Strong | Desirable effects of an intervention clearly outweigh the undesirable effects or clearly do not |
| Weak | Low quality of evidence or the evidence suggests that desirable and undesirable effects are closely balanced |
Recommendations were formulated for healthy, full‐term babies, although evidence relating to preterm infants was discussed if it was thought to be relevant to full‐term babies.
First Cleansing
The previous recommendations 3 were modified in light of expert opinion (Table 2) rather than new direct evidence; all first‐cleansing recommendations were regarded to be founded on low‐quality evidence, a consequence in part of the considerable ethical difficulties inherent in conducting controlled studies in this group.
Table 2.
Recommendations on the First Cleansing of (Full‐Term) Newborns
| Original recommendation (Blume‐Peytavi et al 3) | Revised recommendation | Evidence strength | Recommendation strength |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immediately after delivery, baby can be wiped with water | Baby can be wiped immediately after birth, preferably with dry towel | Low quality | Strong |
| Timing of first bath should be according to local culture | Timing of first bath should be according to local culture | Low quality | Weak |
| Newborn's temperature should be stabilized before first bath is given | First bath should be conducted only once newborn's temperature has stabilized | Low quality | Strong |
| Health care workers should use gloves for first bath | Health care workers should ideally use gloves for first bath | Low quality | Strong |
Bold indicates changes between the original and new recommendations.
The use of water for the first wiping of infants was removed from the first recommendation because this does not reflect usual practice and may be counterproductive; one of the principal reasons for wiping is to dry the baby for temperature stabilization. Furthermore retaining the vernix caseosa in the immediate postbirth period was thought to offer benefits in terms of skin protection; it is thought that the vernix caseosa provides physical protection from amniotic fluid and enzymes and lowers skin surface pH, provides lipids, and exerts a moisturizing effect 5. Therefore the first recommendation was reworded to state that a dry towel should preferably be used. Vigorous rubbing of the baby should be avoided, and in cases of significant soiling, water can be used.
That the first bath should be conducted only once the newborn's temperature has stabilized was a strong recommendation, Bathing “too early” remains commonplace in some locations 6 and should be discouraged because it may unnecessarily interrupt breastfeeding and skin‐to‐skin contact 6 and increase the risk of hypothermia and respiratory distress 7, 8.
The final recommendation was altered to state that health care workers should ideally use gloves for the first bath. This strong guidance is predicated on the assumption that maternal blood may pose a threat to health care professionals and that health care professionals not wearing gloves may increase the risk of microbial contamination to babies. Gloves were regarded as ideal but not mandatory because the first bath may occur many days after birth, at which point the risk of contamination will have decreased; there is also a limited supply of gloves in some health care settings.
Routine Bathing
Newborns can be bathed without harm 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12; this assertion has gained further strength from the results of a randomized controlled study comparing a bath with use of a washcloth 13 (Table 3). Bathing—as part of an evening routine—may be advantageous in terms of improving infant and toddler sleep and maternal mood 14. This, along with the opportunity provided by bathing for enjoyment, tactile stimulation and infant–caregiver bonding 8, 11, is an aspect of routine health care that professionals may wish to consider when advising parents. Nevertheless, the panel did not think that the psychological benefits of bathing noted in the previous roundtable meeting 3 warranted a specific recommendation.
Table 3.
Recommendations on Routine Bathing of Newborns and Infants
| Original recommendation (Blume‐Peytavi et al 3) | Revised recommendation | Evidence strength | Recommendation strength |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bathing does not harm the baby | Bathing of newborns can be carried out with no harm to baby | Moderate quality | Strong |
| Routine bathing may begin before umbilical cord has fallen off, but there may be advantages associated with waiting | Bathing may begin before umbilical cord has fallen off | Low quality | Weak |
| Bathing is better than washing with a cloth | Bathing is preferable to washing with a cloth | Moderate quality | Strong |
| Bathing in the evening can help to calm baby and improve sleep | As part of an evening routine, bathing may be considered to help improve sleep | Low quality | Weak |
| For newborns, bathing should last 5–10 minutes | In newborns, bathing should last 5–10 minutes | Low quality | Weak |
| Bathing should be conducted two to three times per week until baby is crawling or as often as local culture requires | Bathing should be conducted at least two to three times a week or as often as local culture requires | Low quality | Strong |
Bold indicates changes in content between the original and new recommendations.
A number of studies have shown that bathing before the umbilical cord has fallen off does not cause harm 10, 11 and that bathing is no worse than using alcohol wipes to cleanse the cord area 15. The clause concerning possible advantages associated with waiting was removed because of a lack of empirical evidence in this regard.
The recommendation that bathing is “better” than washing with a cloth was reworded to state that this manner of bathing is “preferable.” Although there is evidence that skin barrier parameters are better with bathing than with cloth or sponge washing 13, such differences may not be clinically significant.
The sleep recommendation was clarified in light of clinical evidence suggesting that bathing, as part of a specific routine, may improve infant sleep 14. Results of studies in adults support the argument that prebedtime bathing may be soporific through mechanisms involving the temporary modification of core temperature 16, 17.
The recommendation that newborns should be bathed for 5 to 10 minutes was retained. To our knowledge, no studies have evaluated the length of time newborns should be bathed, so the recommendation was regarded as weak, based on low‐quality evidence. Between 5 and 10 minutes reflects the duration of bathing in clinical trials, none of which suggested evidence of harm caused by the practice 11, 13, 18, 19, 20. This recommendation was limited to newborns, because older infants may enjoy longer baths, and there is no evidence to suggest that this is likely to be harmful.
The frequency‐of‐bathing recommendation was reworded to state that infants should be bathed at least two to three times per week, because this is the minimum frequency used in clinical studies 16, 21, 22, 23, 24.
Safety While Bathing
There were few changes to the 2009 recommendations regarding safety while bathing (Table 4). It was agreed that the bath and bath toys should be “kept clean” rather than “disinfected,” acknowledging that home bathing does not warrant a disinfectant protocol. The bath and toys should be kept clean since outbreaks of Pseudomonas aeruginosa have been linked to contaminated baths and toys 21, 25. In the hospital setting, disinfecting equipment is recommended to avoid nosocomial infection 21. The room air temperature recommendation was revised to include temperatures up to 24°C, based on the assertion that in many parts of the world, such a temperature would be regarded as “comfortable” and would not expose the infant to overheating.
Table 4.
Recommendations on Safety While Bathing Infants
| Original recommendation (Blume‐Peytavi et al 3) | Revised recommendation | Evidence strength | Recommendation strength |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bath should be placed in a safe place | Bath should be located in a safe place | Low quality | Strong |
| Bath and any bath toys should be disinfected to avoid microbiological contamination | Microbiological contamination should be avoided by keeping bath and bath toys clean | Moderate quality | Strong |
| Water temperature should be 37°C–37.5°C | Water temperature should be 37°C–37.5°C | Low quality | Strong |
| Water depth should be to infant's hips | Depth of water should be to the infant's hips (∼5 cm) | Low quality | Weak |
| Washcloth may be used to cover or splash water onto the belly to maintain body heat | Washcloth may be used to cover or splash water onto belly to maintain body heat | Low quality | Strong |
| Room air temperature should be 21°C–22°C | Room air temperature should be 21°C–24°C | Low quality | Weak |
| Baby should not be left alone while in bath and young children should not be allowed to wash the baby | Baby should not be left alone in the bath and young children should not be allowed to wash the baby | Low quality | Strong |
| If oils are used, a mat should be placed in the bath which should also be disinfected regularly | If oils are used, a mat should be placed in the bath, which should also be disinfected regularly | Low quality | Strong |
Bold indicates changes between the original and new recommendations.
After Bathing
Recommendations regarding postbathing care were strengthened slightly (Table 5). It was recommended that infants be covered—not specifically clothed—after bathing. Covering will help prevent the significant temperature drop that can occur 10 minutes after neonatal bathing 12, but unlike clothing, it does not preclude the opportunity for skin‐to‐skin contact with the parent. Two strong recommendations were developed to distinguish between the management of dry skin that results from “normal” maturation processes, such as neonatal physiologic desquamation 22, 26, 27, and conditions that might warrant prescription medication, such as AD. There is clinical evidence to support the efficacy of emollients in improving skin barrier function 23, 24 and preventing diaper dermatitis 28.
Table 5.
Recommendations on Procedures After Bathing
| Original recommendation (Blume‐Peytavi et al 3) | Revised recommendation | Evidence strength | Recommendation strength |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immediately cover the baby with a towel and pat dry | Babies should be immediately covered with a towel and patted dry | Low quality | Strong |
| Dress baby immediately after drying | Babies should be immediately covered after drying | Low quality | Strong |
| Changes to skin structure (e.g., dryness, fissures, flaking) should be treated with an emollient or a protective ointment (diaper area) | An emollient or a protective ointment (diaper area) can be applied for physiological (transitory) skin dryness (see section on emollient care) | Moderate quality | Strong |
| Any pathological damage (e.g., fissures or flaking) should be referred to an appropriate medical professional | Low quality | Strong |
Bold indicates changes between the original and new recommendations.
The Use of Cleansers in Bathing
Surfactants are used in cleansers to remove sweat, sebum, deposits, and oils from the skin, but the interaction between cleanser surfactants and stratum corneum (SC) proteins and lipids can be damaging, potentially leading to tightening of the skin, dryness, erythema, irritation, and itch 29. Health care professionals and parents should be aware of the fundamental distinction between “soaps” and cleansers composed of synthetic detergents (syndets). Soaps are technically the salts of fatty acids (such as sodium cocoate), and soap‐based cleansers are alkaline in nature (pH 10). Bar soaps and soap‐based liquid cleansers can remove natural moisturizing factor (NMF) and lipids from the skin, potentially leading to skin irritation, erythema, and itching 29. In contrast, most of the currently available syndet‐based cleansers are pH neutral or acidic and are formulated to be significantly milder than soap (particularly if harsh surfactants such as sodium lauryl sulfate [SLS] are avoided), which results in less potential for irritation and itch 29. Syndet liquid cleansers, as opposed to syndet bars, facilitate more efficient delivery of potentially beneficial substances such as emollients and occlusives 29. Therefore syndet‐based liquid cleansers have formed the focus of recent research, and products labeled as “soaps” should be avoided on baby skin.
Liquid cleansers that are appropriately formulated for babies are well tolerated and noninferior to washing with water alone 18, 19, 20, 30. It has also been shown that such cleansers do not alter the natural process of maturing skin barrier function in healthy full‐term newborns 19. In addition to being soap free (syndet based), a defining characteristic of the liquid cleansers used in these studies is that they are of neutral or slightly acidic pH, a characteristic echoed in the recommendations for neonatal skin care published by the Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses 24. Therefore the panel strongly recommended that baby skin may be cleansed with water alone or by adding an appropriately formulated liquid cleanser to water and that appropriately designed liquid cleansers can be used without impairing the skin maturation process. In line with the manner in which babies were cleansed in relevant studies 18, 19, 20, 30, these two recommendations apply to the whole body and do not exclude the diaper area (Table 6). The recommendations do not stipulate that liquid cleansers “should” be used, but that they “can” be used. The cost and availability of liquid cleansers may preclude their appropriate use in some settings; nevertheless, parents who intend to use such products should be reassured that their use does not harm normal skin maturation processes.
Table 6.
New Recommendations on the Use of Liquid Cleansers for Bathing
| New recommendation | Evidence strength | Recommendation strength |
|---|---|---|
| Baby skin may be cleansed with water alone or by adding an appropriately formulated liquid cleansera to water | Moderate quality | Strong |
| Appropriately designed liquid cleansers can be used without impairing the skin maturation process | Moderate quality | Strong |
| Parents and caregivers must read product instructions and abide by them; labels should be clear and easy to understand | Low quality | Strong |
| Products supported by robust clinical data should be selected over those that are not similarly developed | Low quality | Strong |
Liquid cleansers that are free of known irritants and neutral or mildly acidic (pH 5.5–7.0) or have minimal effect on the baby's skin surface pH 24.
It was acknowledged that parity in terms of safety and effectiveness does not exist between liquid cleansers and that products, unlike water, may cause harm if misused. Therefore it was recommended that products associated with robust clinical data should be selected over those that are not (Table 6).
Diaper Care
Diaper dermatitis is common, affecting most infants at least once 31. The occlusive diaper environment plays host to a complex interplay of potentially damaging factors. Alkaline urine disrupts the pH balance of the epidermis, which encourages microbial overgrowth and activation of fecal lipases, endogenous and exogenous proteases and bile salts, all of which can lead to further injury 32, 33. New recommendations were developed to provide guidance on routine care of the diaper area (Table 7).
Table 7.
New Recommendations on Diaper Care
| New recommendation | Evidence strength | Recommendation strength |
|---|---|---|
| Diaper area should be kept clean and dry | High quality | Strong |
| Diapers should be changed as often as necessary to ensure that skin is kept clean and dry | Moderate quality | Strong |
| Skin of the diaper area should be gently cleansed with cotton balls/squares or washcloth and water alone or using specifically designed wipes | Moderate quality | Strong |
| Appropriately designed wipesa can be used from birth | Moderate quality | Strong |
| Wipes can be used at each diaper change | Moderate quality | Weak |
| Drying can be achieved through air drying or gentle patting with a dry towel or dry cotton balls/squares | Moderate quality | Strong |
| Diaper area should be cleaned before bathing, if necessary | Moderate quality | Strong |
Wipes should contain pH buffers to maintain slight acidity of the skin and should be free of potential irritants such as alcohol, fragrance, essential oils, soap, and harsh detergents (e.g., sodium lauryl sulfate); they should contain well‐tolerated preservatives.
To reduce the risk of diaper dermatitis and manage the condition should it occur, it was strongly recommended that the diaper area be kept clean and dry and that diapers should be changed as often as necessary. The need to keep the diaper area dry was highlighted, as prolonged and excessive humidity can increase friction, lead to skin maceration, increase permeability, and encourage microbial overgrowth 34. Because excessive scrubbing and rubbing of the diaper area may promote irritation and further damage the barrier properties of the skin surface 24, 35, 36, it was strongly recommended that drying should be achieved through air drying or gentle patting with a dry towel or dry cotton balls/squares.
A number of studies have directly compared the use of wipes with water 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44. None were powered to assess the superiority of one form of cleansing over the other, although there was no evidence from any study to indicate that wipes caused harm 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44. Based on a review of these studies, it was recommended that the diaper area be gently cleansed with cotton balls/squares or a washcloth and water alone or by using appropriately designed wipes (strong recommendation) (Table 7). Wipes appropriately designed for infants may be used from birth and at each diaper change. As the authors of a randomized controlled equivalence study comparing wipes with water 41 and others 43 found, one of the most important characteristics of baby wipes that makes them specifically suitable for babies is pH; wipes should contain pH buffers to maintain the slight acidity of skin. Other considerations are that they should be free of potential irritants such as alcohol, fragrance, essential oils, soap, and harsh detergents (e.g., SLS) 41. Given that wet wipes provide the ideal environment for microbial growth 45, it is important that wipes contain appropriate (well‐tolerated) preservatives, as regulated by bodies such as the U.S. Cosmetic Ingredient Review or the European Union Cosmetics Directive. Health care professionals should be aware of recent reports of allergic contact dermatitis in children in relation to methylisothiazolinone used in wet wipes 46, 47. Water used for wiping with cotton balls/squares or a washcloth does not need to be boiled unless there is a specific concern about the water quality. Given reports of neonatal deaths in the intensive care unit attributable to infected bathing water in developing countries 48, this recommendation does not extend to low‐birthweight or premature babies.
Use of Emollients
Clinical evidence derived from controlled studies of healthy infants 19, 49, 50 combined with evidence from studies demonstrating the positive effect of emollients in patients with AD (or at high risk of AD) and impaired barrier function 51, 52, 53, 54 supports the theoretical rationale for the use of emollients 55. Appropriately formulated emollients can be used to maintain or enhance skin barrier function after bathing and at least twice‐weekly application of emollients, as in the Garcia Bartels et al study 19, should be considered (Table 8). Longer‐term studies designed to evaluate the clinical benefits of emollients in healthy infants—potentially to prevent the onset of the typical progression of allergic diseases that often begins early in life—are warranted 56 and would strengthen the evidence for these recommendations.
Table 8.
New Recommendations on Topical Use of Emollients and Oils
| New recommendation | Evidence strength | Recommendation strength |
|---|---|---|
| Recommendations for use of emollients | ||
| Appropriately formulated emollients can be used to maintain or enhance skin barrier function | Low quality | Strong |
| Emollients can be used after bathing | Low quality | Strong |
| At least twice‐weekly application of emollients should be considered | Low quality | Strong |
| Choice of emollient should be adapted to geographical location and seasonal variations | Low quality | Strong |
| Emollients should be applied as a thin layer, with special attention to certain areas | Low quality | Strong |
| Recommendations for topical application of oils | ||
| Appropriately formulated baby oils can be lightly applied to skin for physiological (transitory) skin dryness | Low quality | Weak |
| A small amount of appropriately formulated baby oil can be applied to baby's bath, according to product usage recommendations | Low quality | Weak |
| Over‐the‐counter cooking or kitchen oils should not be used on baby's skin | Low quality | Strong |
Given that environmental factors such as humidity and temperature can affect the skin, it was strongly recommended that the choice of emollient be adapted to geographic location and season 57, 58. Richer (higher proportion of emollient than water) emollients may be required in cold climates and less rich emollients in warmer climates or times of the year.
Emollients should be applied in a thin layer to avoid occlusive effects, and care should be taken to avoid the trapping of emollients in folds, which may lead to dysregulation of evaporation or heat dysregulation and bacterial colonization 59, 60. Special attention should be paid to the perioral area to protect infants from the irritating effects of saliva, particularly during periods of teething. If neonatal or infantile acne is present, application of emollients to the affected area should be avoided to prevent follicular occlusion, which could exacerbate the condition.
Highlighting the importance of design, certain emollients containing SLS and no humectants may contribute to skin barrier breakdown (SLS solubilizes SC lipids, denatures keratin, and raises skin surface pH 32), so health care professionals should be aware of the suitability of emollients, and those containing SLS should be avoided.
Use of Oils
Oils are widely used as emollients during bathing and to lubricate the skin during infant massage. Research suggests that infant massage, particularly when a lubricant is used, may offer several positive effects, including improving neonatal jaundice and weight gain 61, 62, 63, but no controlled studies in healthy, full‐term infants have evaluated the effect of the direct application of oils or the addition of oils to bath water on normal skin.
In many parts of the world there is a long history of using locally produced oils on infant skin, but vegetable oils vary greatly in terms of chemical composition. Many cookery and kitchen vegetable oils are sensitive to oxidation or light and are associated with variable levels of biologic activity 64. Therefore the effects of topically applied grocery vegetable oils are unpredictable because vegetable oils are chemically heterogeneous, individual bottles of the same type of oil may differ chemically because of the natural variability in source ingredients, and the characteristics of an individual bottle of oil will likely change over time as oxidative processes take place. Pharmaceutical‐grade oils, including mineral oil, are chemically inert, stable, and generally regarded as safe, exerting a moisturizing effect by hydrating and enhancing the SC 64. As such, appropriately formulated baby oils can be applied in a thin layer to the skin for physiological (transitory) skin dryness, and a small amount of appropriately formulated baby oil can be applied to the bath (as long as appropriate safety measures are in place [see Table 4]; it is particularly important that infants not be left alone with a bottle of oil and that products be used as directed to reduce the risk of infants breathing in or ingesting oils) (Table 8).
Research is ongoing regarding the safety–efficacy profile of specific vegetable and seed oils. The use of vegetable oils in specifically designed products (rather than the direct application of natural oils on the skin) is a separate question beyond the scope of this article.
Ideal Cleansers, Wipes, and Emollients
The results of the studies of products described above cannot necessarily be extrapolated to all similarly described products. To help guide the manufacturers of baby skin care products, “ideal” product attributes have been recommended (Table 9). It is hoped that these recommendations will serve as a benchmark for the future development of cleansers, wipes, and emollients. Translation of these recommendations into practical guidance to aid product recommendation and selection could warrant the development of a system by which individual products are rated for suitability for infant skin according to a set of predefined criteria. Such a system, if clear and widely adopted, has the potential to simplify choice and help protect infants from suboptimal products.
Table 9.
New Recommendations for Industry on Properties of Ideal Liquid Cleansers, Wipes, and Emollients
| New recommendation | Evidence strength | Recommendation strength |
|---|---|---|
| Formulation should buffer or maintain babies’ skin surface at approximately pH 5.5 | Moderate quality | Strong |
| Formulation should not interfere with normal skin microbiome development of babies’ skin | Low quality | Strong |
| Formulation and all of its ingredients should have undergone extensive program of safety testing; only use ingredients approved for use on babies by regulatorsa | Low quality | Strong |
| Formulation should be effectively preserved using preservatives recommended by regulatorsa | Low quality | Strong |
| If formulation contains fragrances, they should be selected from a regulator‐approved list, which should have the lowest probability of causing adverse events, such as contact dermatitisa | Low quality | Strong |
| Safety and efficacy of the formulation should be evaluated in high‐quality clinical trials | Low quality | Strong |
| Formulation should contain a complex of mild emulsifiers and surfactants that will effectively cleanse or hydrate babies’ skin and exert no negative effects on skin barrier | Low quality | Strong |
| Cleanser may contain emollient ingredients, and emollient should contain a combination of ingredients that will have a positive effect on skin barrier | Low quality | Strong |
| Formulation for liquid cleanser and wipes should effectively cleanse babies’ skin to remove substances that may be damaging to it, such as feces, urine, and food residues | Low quality | Strong |
| Formulation should not contain ingredients that will damage babies’ skin, such as harsh surfactants, in particular sodium lauryl sulphate | Moderate quality | Strong |
| Formulation should not irritate babies’ skin (cleanser, wipes, emollients) or eyes (cleanser only) | Moderate quality | Strong |
There is no comprehensive and universal list of ingredients approved for use on baby skin, but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has published a list of banned substances for use in cosmetic products 65. The European Commission has published a list of approved preservatives for use in cosmetics 66, and information about approved fragrances can also be searched for 67.
Conclusion
Skin care is fundamental to healthy infant development, but parents may be confused regarding best practice for this routine aspect of care 2. We hope that health care professionals will use these evidence‐based recommendations to guide parents with respect to the practical facets of cleansing, bathing, moisturizing, and care of the diaper region. Critical updates from the previous recommendations have been derived from clinical studies of liquid cleansers, wipes, and emollients; for example, the equivalence of wipes 41 and the noninferiority of a liquid cleanser 18 to water have been shown (in terms of skin hydration and transepidermal water loss, respectively), and studies have demonstrated that the use of such products does not influence skin barrier maturation 19, 37. Therefore clinical evidence demands a nuanced approach; parents should be reassured in their choice of infant skin care regime, be it the sole use of water or the use of appropriately formulated cleansers, wipes, emollients, and oils.
Conflict of Interest
UB‐P is a consultant to Johnson & Johnson, has received honoraria as a speaker for Pierre Fabre and Galderma, and has received grants for clinical and research trials from Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, Pierre Fabre, Bübchen, and WALA as an employee of the Charité. MJC and TL have received research grants from, given lectures for, and acted as consultants to Johnson & Johnson. DJ is a substantive consultant for Polish Johnson's Baby publications and materials. AT has been paid as a consultant for Johnson & Johnson trials.
Financial Support
The roundtable meeting was supported by Johnson & Johnson, but the company did not contribute to, review, or author this article. Medical writing assistance for the development of this article was provided by Amy Jackson, M.Phil., at Fishawack Communications, whose services Johnson & Johnson paid for.
The copyright line for this article was changed on 20 July 2016 after original online publication.
References
- 1. Cork MJ, Robinson DA, Vasilopoulos Y et al. New perspectives on epidermal barrier dysfunction in atopic dermatitis: gene‐environment interactions. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2006;118:3–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Ashcraft L, Anthony B. Transforming our thinking about psychiatric medications. Behav Healthc 2011;31:12–15. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Blume‐Peytavi U, Cork MJ, Faergemann J et al. Bathing and cleansing in newborns from day 1 to first year of life: recommendations from a European round table meeting. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2009;23:751–759. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924–926. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Visscher MO, Adam R, Brink S et al. Newborn infant skin: physiology, development, and care. Clin Dermatol 2015;33:271–280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Sobel HL, Silvestre MA, Mantaring JB III et al. Immediate newborn care practices delay thermoregulation and breastfeeding initiation. Acta Paediatr 2011;100:1127–1133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Penny‐MacGillivray T. A newborn's first bath: when? J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 1996;25:481–487. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Darmstadt GL, Dinulos JG. Neonatal skin care. Pediatr Clin North Am 2000;47:757–782. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Medves JM, O'Brien B. The effect of bather and location of first bath on maintaining thermal stability in newborns. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2004;33:175–182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Henningsson A, Nystrom B, Tunnell R. Bathing or washing babies after birth? Lancet 1981;2:1401–1403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Bryanton J, Walsh D, Barrett M et al. Tub bathing versus traditional sponge bathing for the newborn. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2004;33:704–712. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Anderson GC, Lane AE, Chang HP. Axillary temperature in transitional newborn infants before and after tub bath. Appl Nurs Res 1995;8:123–128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Garcia Bartels N, Mleczko A, Schink T et al. Influence of bathing or washing on skin barrier function in newborns during the first four weeks of life. Skin Pharmacol Physiol 2009;22:248–257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Mindell JA, Telofski LS, Wiegand B et al. A nightly bedtime routine: impact on sleep in young children and maternal mood. Sleep 2009;32:599–606. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Covas Mdel C, Alda E, Medina MS et al. [Alcohol versus bath and natural drying for term newborns’ umbilical cord care: a prospective randomized clinical trial]. Arch Argent Pediatr 2011;109:305–313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Liao WC. Effects of passive body heating on body temperature and sleep regulation in the elderly: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud 2002;39:803–810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Kanda K, Tochihara Y, Ohnaka T. Bathing before sleep in the young and in the elderly. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 1999;80:71–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Lavender T, Bedwell C, Roberts SA et al. Randomized, controlled trial evaluating a baby wash product on skin barrier function in healthy, term neonates. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2013;42:203–214. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Garcia Bartels N, Scheufele R, Prosch F et al. Effect of standardized skin care regimens on neonatal skin barrier function in different body areas. Pediatr Dermatol 2010;27:1–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Dizon MV, Galzote C, Estanislao R et al. Tolerance of baby cleansers in infants: a randomized controlled trial. Indian Pediatr 2010;47:959–963. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Little K, Cutcliffe S. The safe use of children's toys within the healthcare setting. Nurs Times 2006;102:34–37. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Buttery JP, Alabaster SJ, Heine RG et al. Multiresistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa outbreak in a pediatric oncology ward related to bath toys. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1998;17:509–513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Hoeger PH, Enzmann CC. Skin physiology of the neonate and young infant: a prospective study of functional skin parameters during early infancy. Pediatr Dermatol 2002;19:256–262. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Hachem JP, Crumrine D, Fluhr J et al. pH directly regulates epidermal permeability barrier homeostasis, and stratum corneum integrity/cohesion. J Invest Dermatol 2003;121:345–353. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Egelrud T, Hofer PA, Lundstrom A. Proteolytic degradation of desmosomes in plantar stratum corneum leads to cell dissociation in vitro. Acta Derm Venereol 1988;68:93–97. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Ghadially R, Halkier‐Sorensen L, Elias PM. Effects of petrolatum on stratum corneum structure and function. J Am Acad Dermatol 1992;26:387–396. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Neonatal skin care evidence‐based clinical practice guideline, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- 28. Stamatas GN, Tierney NK. Diaper dermatitis: etiology, manifestations, prevention, and management. Pediatr Dermatol 2014;31:1–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Ananthapadmanabhan KP, Moore DJ, Subramanyan K et al. Cleansing without compromise: the impact of cleansers on the skin barrier and the technology of mild cleansing. Dermatol Ther 2004;17(Suppl 1):16–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Blume‐Peytavi U, Hauser M, Stamatas GN et al. Skin care practices for newborns and infants: review of the clinical evidence for best practices. Pediatr Dermatol 2012;29:1–14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Atherton D, Mills K. What can be done to keep babies’ skin healthy? RCM Midwives 2004;7:288–290. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Danby SG, Bedwell C, Cork M. Neonatal skin care and toxicology In: Eichenfield L, Frieden IJ, eds. Neonatal and infant dermatology, 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier, 2013:46–56. [Google Scholar]
- 33. Andersen PH, Bucher AP, Saeed I et al. Faecal enzymes: in vivo human skin irritation. Contact Dermatitis 1994;30:152–158. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Zimmerer RE, Lawson KD, Calvert CJ. The effects of wearing diapers on skin. Pediatr Dermatol 1986;3:95–101. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Shin HT. Diaper dermatitis that does not quit. Dermatol Ther 2005;18:124–135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Jackson PD. Diaper dermatitis. Protecting the bottom line. Adv Nurse Pract 2010;18:38–41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Garcia Bartels N, Massoudy L, Scheufele R et al. Standardized diaper care regimen: a prospective, randomized pilot study on skin barrier function and epidermal IL‐1α in newborns. Pediatr Dermatol 2012;29:270–276. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Visscher M, Odio M, Taylor T et al. Skin care in the NICU patient: effects of wipes versus cloth and water on stratum corneum integrity. Neonatology 2009;96:226–234. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Senses DA, Ozturk CE, Yar NE et al. Do baby wet wipes change periurethral aerobic flora? Jpn J Infect Dis 2007;60:225–226. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Priestley GC, McVittie E, Aldridge RD. Changes in skin pH after the use of baby wipes. Pediatr Dermatol 1996;13:14–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Lavender T, Furber C, Campbell M et al. Effect on skin hydration of using baby wipes to clean the napkin area of newborn babies: assessor‐blinded randomised controlled equivalence trial. BMC Pediatr 2012;12:59. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Ehretsmann C, Schaefer P, Adam R. Cutaneous tolerance of baby wipes by infants with atopic dermatitis, and comparison of the mildness of baby wipe and water in infant skin. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2001;15(Suppl 1):16–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Adam R, Schnetz B, Mathey P et al. Clinical demonstration of skin mildness and suitability for sensitive infant skin of a new baby wipe. Pediatr Dermatol 2009;26:506–513. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Blume‐Peytavi U, Hauser M, Lunnemann L et al. Prevention of diaper dermatitis in infants—a literature review. Pediatr Dermatol 2014;31:413–429. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Siegert W. Preservative free trends in wet wipers. Int J Appl Sci 2011;137:44–51. [Google Scholar]
- 46. Chang MW, Nakrani R. Six children with allergic contact dermatitis to methylisothiazolinone in wet wipes (baby wipes). Pediatrics 2014;133:e434–e438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Coughlin CC, Frieden IJ, Eichenfield LF. Clinical approaches to skin cleansing of the diaper area: practice and challenges. Pediatr Dermatol 2014;31(Suppl 1):1–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Antony B, Prasad R. An outbreak of neonatal septicaemia by Enterobacter cloacae . Asian Pac J Trop Dis 2011;1:227–229. [Google Scholar]
- 49. Iarkowski LE, Tierney NK, Horowitz P. Tolerance of skin care regimen in healthy, full‐term neonates. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol 2013;6:137–144. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50. Garcia Bartels N, Rosler S, Martus P et al. Effect of baby swimming and baby lotion on the skin barrier of infants aged 3–6 months. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 2011;9:1018–1025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51. Hon KL, Leung AK, Barankin B. Barrier repair therapy in atopic dermatitis: an overview. Am J Clin Dermatol 2013;14:389–399. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52. Wiren K, Nohlgard C, Nyberg F et al. Treatment with a barrier‐strengthening moisturizing cream delays relapse of atopic dermatitis: a prospective and randomized controlled clinical trial. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2009;23:1267–1272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53. Simpson EL, Berry TM, Brown PA et al. A pilot study of emollient therapy for the primary prevention of atopic dermatitis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2010;63:587–593. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54. Liu K, Anthony BA, Yearsly MM et al. CD103 deficiency prevents graft‐versus‐host disease but spares graft‐versus‐tumor effects mediated by alloreactive CD8 T cells. PLoS One 2011;6:e21968. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55. Telofski LS, Morello AP III, Mack Correa MC et al. The infant skin barrier: can we preserve, protect, and enhance the barrier? Dermatol Res Pract 2012;2012:198789. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56. Williams HC, Chalmers JR, Simpson EL. Prevention of atopic dermatitis. F1000 Med Rep 2012;4:24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57. Uter W, Gefeller O, Schwanitz HJ. An epidemiological study of the influence of season (cold and dry air) on the occurrence of irritant skin changes of the hands. Br J Dermatol 1998;138:266–272. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58. Denda M. Epidermal proliferative response induced by sodium dodecyl sulphate varies with environmental humidity. Br J Dermatol 2001;145:252–257. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 59. Willis I. The effects of prolonged water exposure on human skin. J Invest Dermatol 1973;60:166–171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60. Tsai TF, Maibach HI. How irritant is water? An overview. Contact Dermatitis 1999;41:311–314. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 61. Kulkarni A, Kaushik JS, Gupta P et al. Massage and touch therapy in neonates: the current evidence. Indian Pediatr 2010;47:771–776. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 62. Chen J, Sadakata M, Ishida M et al. Baby massage ameliorates neonatal jaundice in full‐term newborn infants. Tohoku J Exp Med 2011;223:97–102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 63. Serrano MS, Doren FM, Wilson L. Teaching Chilean mothers to massage their full‐term infants: effects on maternal breast‐feeding and infant weight gain at age 2 and 4 months. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs 2010;24:172–181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 64. Rawlings AV, Lombard KJ. A review on the extensive skin benefits of mineral oil. Int J Cosmet Sci 2012;34:511–518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 65. U.S. Government Printing Office . Subpart B—Requirements for Specific Cosmetic Products. 2015. [online]. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=c108128827d21f2d274e894731665ef4&rgn=div6&view=text&node=21:7.0.1.2.10.2&idno=21 (accessed July 8, 2015).
- 66. European Commission. Cosmetics—CosIng . List of preservatives allowed. 2015. [online]. http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.results&annex_v1=VI&search (accessed July 16, 2015).
- 67. European Commission. CosIng . List of fragrances allowed. 2015. [online]. http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/cosmetics/cosing/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.results (accessed July 16, 2015).