ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
Topical steroid withdrawal: dissecting the controversy.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
In the past few years, topical steroid withdrawal (TSW) has received increasing recognition from research and regulatory agencies. Delphi protocols have solidified the clinical features and treatment options recognized by clinicians. Pilot studies elucidating the mechanisms of TSW pathology have been performed. Meanwhile, regulatory bodies have updated the topical corticosteroids (TCS) warning labels to include TSW. And yet, the idea that TSW is distinct from the underlying dermopathies which conferred the TCS exposure remains debated by some. This narrative review aims to help providers better understand the origins of, and current state of, the controversy surrounding TSW. We review the history of TSW claims and counter claims, focusing on sources found in the medical literature. Having presented the development of TSW skepticism, we next detail the errors in the three main examples of TSW denial: ignoring the syndromic nature of TSW to focus on skin pathology which overlaps with other dermopathies; systematically devaluing patient-reported symptoms; and circular logic asserting that studies into TSW cannot be conducted without first establishing diagnostic criteria requiring studies to obtain. Finally, we present an updated assessment in the knowledge gaps surrounding TSW. We hope that this report will help providers recognize TSW, especially in contrasting the disorder with the dermopathies which have similar presentations of cutaneous symptoms. Overall, we believe this report will help providers better reassure patients to whom the diagnosis of TSW should not be applied, better council patient on the risks of TCS, and better provide trauma-informed care for patients who with TSW.
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.