ArticleIndian dermatology online journal2026
Quackery in Dermatology - A Multidimensional Burden: Cross-sectional Evidence by an Exploratory Survey from a Dermatology Camp.
Article in Indian dermatology online journal, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDermatological quackery is an increasing public health concern in India, driven by poor regulation, easy access to medications, and the growing influence of social media and unqualified practitioners. AIM AND
objectivesTo assess the patterns, outcomes, economic burden, awareness, and psychosocial impact of dermatological quackery among patients attending a dermatology camp. PATIENTS AND
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted during a dermatology camp in Bengaluru, India (January 2026). Patients with prior exposure to unqualified practitioners were included. Data were collected using a structured, validated questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were computed, and associations were analyzed using Chi-square/Fisher's exact tests with odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals.
resultsEighty-one patients were analyzed; most were young (55.6%), female (59.3%), from low-income households (79%), and from rural areas (60.5%). Common indications reported included skin lightening (96.3%), aesthetic concerns (91.3%), fungal infections (88.8%), and hair loss (83.9%) at various instances. Social media influencers (100%) and self-proclaimed skin/hair specialists without national medical commission-recognized postgraduate qualifications (93.8%) were major contributors. Topical treatments were used by 84.0% of participants; combination creams were used by 66.7%, while steroid-containing cream use was confirmed by 13.6% and considered possible by 44.4%. Adverse effects occurred in 76.5%, and 65.4% reported worsening. Most patients (90.1%) required dermatologist consultation, with delayed care (>1 month) in 59.3%. Side effects were strongly associated with worsening (OR 23.21, P < 0.001) and additional expenses (OR 15.50, P < 0.001). Awareness of legal aspects was low (27.2%), and reporting rates were poor (13.6%). Psychosocial effects included loss of confidence (66.7%) and emotional distress (16%). LIMITATIONS: Camp-based sampling and self-reported data may limit generalizability.
conclusionsDermatological quackery leads to significant clinical harm, delayed care, and psychosocial burden, highlighting the need for stricter regulation and public awareness.
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.