ReviewClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2026
Standardized Clinical Photography for Improving Dermatological Treatment Adherence (Scoping Review): Evidence Landscape and Research Gaps.
Review in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Treatment adherence remains suboptimal across chronic dermatological conditions, contributing to poor clinical outcomes and increased healthcare burden. Despite the established role of standardized clinical photography in clinical documentation, its specific application as an adherence-promoting intervention remains poorly characterized. This scoping review aimed to systematically map the literature on photographic feedback in dermatology, identify research gaps, and propose methodological recommendations for future randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted a scoping review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Systematic searches of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, supplemented by Europe PMC, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, and Google Scholar (first 200 records), were performed from database inception to December 31, 2025 (searches executed September 20-27, 2026). Of 1181 identified records, 18 studies met the eligibility criteria: five provided direct evidence, five indirect evidence, and eight methodological evidence. Direct evidence comprised three observational studies in hair loss disorders encompassing 3,218 patients (93% of participants derived from a single retrospective cohort), one virtual feasibility study in atopic dermatitis, and one remote photographic wound-monitoring study in keloids; the remaining five prespecified conditions (psoriasis, acne, vitiligo, rosacea, and melasma) yielded zero direct evidence, although vitiligo has an established methodological photography literature. Of the five direct-evidence studies, four measured motivation, satisfaction, task completion, or image-upload compliance rather than treatment adherence per se. Indirect evidence from smartphone applications exists for psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, but these bundle photography with other digital functions. We propose the "early difference refutation" design to address reverse causality in future RCTs. High-quality RCTs are urgently needed to determine whether photographic feedback alone can improve dermatological treatment adherence.
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.