Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42547474›Full record

ReviewAnnals of dermatology2026

Screening for Psychiatric Disorders in Dermatological Settings: A Review of Clinically Useful Assessment Tools.

Kyung Ho Lee, Chi-Un Pae

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kyung Ho LeeDepartment of Dermatology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0108-3376
Chi-Un PaeCell Death Disease Research Center, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1632-4248

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The possibility of coexistence of dermatological diseases and psychiatric disorders has been proposed through a number of previous studies since considerable commonality in underlying pathophysiology including alteration in immune function, hormonal dysfunction, vulnerability to stress, patient-specific personality traits, genetic factors, and environmental factors, while the two clinical conditions share few similarities in phenomenology. From a diagnostic aspect, many dermatological disorders are frequently questioned to have comorbid psychiatric disorders, and dermatological delusions/preoccupations are even officially recognized among formal psychiatric disorders diagnosis criteria. Interestingly, academic terms such as "psychodermatology" and "psychocutaneous disease" are also commonly utilized in clinical practice. When comorbid psychiatric disorders are present but not recognized, patients may not receive timely and proper psychiatric intervention or psychosocial support, inadequate treatment and poor compliance to therapy may lead to failure of optimal treatment outcomes. Hence, proactive screening for comorbid or underlying psychiatric conditions can substantially enhance both treatment benefit and prognosis of dermatological diseases in routine clinical practice. However, it is very challenging for dermatologists without psychiatric training backgrounds to efficiently screen and diagnose psychiatric disorders in busy clinical settings. Thus, this review tries to provide dermatologists with simple, valid, and useful psychiatric rating scales for their routine practice.

Indexed as

ComorbidityDiagnosisPsychiatric rating scalePsychodermatologyScreening

Identifiers

PMID42547474
PMCPMC13443052

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.