ArticleInternational journal of dermatology2026
International Expert Consensus on Defining Skin of Color and Delivering Equitable Dermatologic Care.
Article in International journal of dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnosing skin conditions in patients with skin of colour: Is colour the only challenge?Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026Article
- Sunburn Awareness and Post-Exposure Symptoms in Self-Identified People of Color: A Cross-Sectional Survey.International journal of dermatology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Oncology: A Comprehensive Cross-Cancer Translational Readiness Analysis Across 18 Malignancies.Cancers · 2026Review
- Reconstruction of Facial Soft Tissue Defects in Dark Skin: A Cross-sectional Study.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Review
- Diversity and Content Reliability Among Dermatologist Influencers on TikTok: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- International Expert Consensus on Knowledge Gaps in Care for Dermatologic Disorders in Skin of Color.International journal of 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Dermatological practice faces significant challenges in meeting the needs of populations with skin of color (SOC). Patients with SOC face disparities, including misdiagnoses and inequitable treatment outcomes. This expert consensus sought to identify gaps in dermatologic care for these populations and to propose strategies to promote inclusivity. Classification systems for SOC and healthcare disparities were investigated by reviewing English language articles on the subject published in PubMed between 2019 and 2024. An international panel of multidisciplinary experts from four continents (America, Asia, Africa, and Europe) analyzed the findings and developed recommendations. There are limitations in the current skin type classification systems, and gaps persist for SOC populations in research, clinical trials, and education for both providers and patients. Proposed strategies to bridge these gaps include refining classification systems (Dermatology societies), advancing SOC-specific research, enhancing education, and integrating artificial intelligence. Key recommendations from the panel focused on four areas: (1) Research: Achieve SOC numbers in clinical trials and publications that would be a reflection of local and global populations, publish new guidelines on key SOC-related issues, and achieve representative authorship in the said clinical trials and publications; (2) Resources: Create a global library of SOC images for dermatological diseases; (3) Education: Provide training for healthcare professionals and scholarships for students worldwide to improve awareness and expertise; (4) Representation: Ensure SOC representation in images used for patient communication and educational materials.
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.