ArticleArchives of dermatological research2023
A survey of United States dermatologists' knowledge, attitudes, and practices with intramuscular triamcinolone.
Article in Archives of dermatological research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Enigma of Intramuscular Triamcinolone and Its Versatility as a Safe and Effective Dermatologic Therapy.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Since the 1970s, intramuscular triamcinolone (IMT) has been available as an option for systemic corticosteroid use in dermatology. Although shown to be safe and effective in early studies, this method of systemic corticosteroid delivery fell out of favor in the 1980s in many United States residency programs. To identify factors associated with US dermatologists' preferences for and use of IMT we surveyed a random sample of US board-certified dermatologists to assess knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding IMT in dermatologists' daily clinical practice. A total of 844 out of 2000 dermatologists completed the survey (42.2%). Only 55.0% reported feeling comfortable using IMT for steroid-responsive dermatoses, while 90.4% felt comfortable using oral corticosteroids for steroid-responsive dermatoses. Most participants (59.2%) did not prefer IMT over oral corticosteroids when both were indicated. One third (33.3%) of the participants reported that none of the faculty during their residency advocated using IMT. Receiving education on IMT indications (OR = 1.96 [95% CI: 1.46-2.63]) and encouragement to use IMT (OR = 4.29 [95% CI: 3.01-6.11]) during residency were positively associated with use of IMT at least once a month in current practice. Current knowledge, attitudes, and practices surrounding IMT vary amongst practicing dermatologists. Modifiable factors such as training could improve comfort with use of this short-term systemic steroid treatment modality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.