ArticleJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
Dermatologists' Way of Informative Content About Dermatology and Cosmetology on Social Media.
Article in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quackery in Dermatology - A Multidimensional Burden: Cross-sectional Evidence by an Exploratory Survey from a Dermatology Camp.Indian dermatology online journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Dermatologists' Way of Informative Content on Dermatology and Cosmetology on Social Media.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Article
- Dermatologists' Way of Informative Content About Dermatology and Cosmetology on Social Media.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSocial media (SM) plays a critical role in the dissemination of information, particularly in dermatology and cosmetology, where misinformation is prevalent. However, the spread of misinformation by non-experts poses risks to public health. Dermatologists' participation in SM can help correct inaccuracies and improve public health knowledge. This study aims to evaluate the practices of Turkish dermatologists in creating and sharing dermatology and cosmetology-related content on SM platforms. MATERIAL AND
methodsAn online survey consisting of 36 questions was distributed to Turkish dermatologists via WhatsApp, a closed Facebook group, and email. The survey gathered data on the dermatologists' demographics, SM usage, and content creation practices. The survey was conducted over a three-month period from May to August 2024. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis.
resultsAmong the 137 respondents, 34% reported sharing informative content on SM, with WhatsApp and Instagram being the most used platforms. Common topics included acne (87%), cosmetic procedures like botulinum toxin (80%), and skincare advice (53%). However, only a small percentage consistently cited scientific references, and many were unaware of the legal and ethical implications of sharing patient images. The majority of dermatologists (79%) believed their posts had a positive effect on patients' decisions to use their medical services.
conclusionWhile the use of social media by dermatologists to disseminate health information is growing, the quality and ethical standards of the content shared still need improvement. Dermatologists should play a more active role in creating evidence-based, informative content, especially regarding serious dermatological conditions like skin cancer, which are less frequently covered. Additionally, there is a need for greater awareness and training on the ethical and legal aspects of using SM, particularly regarding patient privacy and informed consent. The presence of dermatologists on SM can help counteract the spread of misinformation and ensure that the public has access to accurate and reliable dermatological and cosmetic information.
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.