How long will I need narrowband UVB?
Short answerThere is no universal course length that applies to every condition, person, body area, setting, or device. Your team should give you a review plan tied to a clinical goal, safety observations, treatment record, and the burden of continuing. Evidence Evidence
More detail
Phototherapy guidelines describe courses with planned clinical review rather than a guaranteed finish date. Response and tolerability vary, and treatment may be delivered in a clinic or, for selected people, at home.
What depends on your situation
Your team should translate guideline evidence into a review plan; the timing of visible change varies by person and body area.
Questions for the team managing phototherapy
- What goal and review point are we using for my course?Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
Does reaching a review point mean the treatment worked or failed?
Short answerNo. A review point is a time to compare the agreed goal with recorded treatments, reactions, visible change, burden, and new health information. It is not an automatic success or failure rule. Evidence Evidence
More detail
Clinical review can lead to continuing, changing, pausing, or ending a plan, depending on the condition and person. Comparable records make that conversation more reliable than memory alone.
What depends on your situation
Ordinary photographs and self-recorded outcomes cannot independently establish effectiveness or supply a treatment change.
Questions for the team managing phototherapy
- What evidence will you review, and what decisions could follow?Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
What if travel, illness, access, or a reaction interrupts treatment?
Short answerRecord the interruption and contact the responsible team for plan-specific instructions before resuming. Do not make up for missed treatment, copy an old plan, or restart without their guidance. Evidence Evidence
More detail
A break can change what the team needs to review, including recent reactions, new medicines, illness, pregnancy, and the exact device or setting. Safety guidance remains treatment-specific.
What depends on your situation
The right response depends on the reason for the interruption, recent reactions, medicines, health changes, device, and setting. A missed treatment is not automatically dangerous or a personal failure.
Questions for the team managing phototherapy
- Which interruptions require contact before I resume?Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
What happens when a course ends?
Short answerWhen a course ends, review what was achieved and what remains uncertain. Ask what to track, whether maintenance applies, and what should bring you back. Stopping light therapy does not end access to support or future review. Evidence Evidence
More detail
Vitiligo can relapse after repigmentation, and treatment goals can change. Other conditions also have their own follow-up and maintenance considerations.
What depends on your situation
Durability and maintenance evidence vary by condition and treatment. Any maintenance plan needs a defined clinical goal and review point.
Questions for the team managing phototherapy
- What should I track?Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
- What should bring me back?Saving keeps this on your device and needs JavaScript, which is off in this browser.
Applicability check
Who was studied?
These fields show what the cited evidence reports about the people and body sites behind outcome or safety claims. “Not reported” means the reviewed source omitted the field; “Pending exact source review” means SteadySkin has not made that determination yet.
Record the interruption and contact the responsible team for plan-specific instructions before resuming. Do not make up for missed treatment, copy an old plan, or restart without their guidance.
- Age range
- Pending exact source review
- Condition subtype
- Pending exact source review
- Severity or extent
- Pending exact source review
- Sample size
- Pending exact source review
- Geography and care setting
- Pending exact source review
- Skin tone or phototype
- Pending exact source review
- Race
- Pending exact source review
- Ethnicity
- Pending exact source review
- Body sites
- Pending exact source review
What that means for this page: This is explicitly gated as a safety claim, but exact population extraction is still pending. It cannot publish or support an estimate of individual risk until that review is complete.
Evidence behind this page
Sources
Each evidence badge opens the source and its limits. The full list stays available here.
- Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and VenereologyGuideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The journal is the publisher. This label refers to extensive author relationships disclosed for the recommendation, not to the journal itself.
What this source supports
Supports an expert-consensus map of established, off-label and developing Vitiligo treatment categories and makes clear that research is continuing.
What it does not support
It is an international consensus with extensive author relationships, not independent comparative proof, current U.S. regulatory status for every option or a personal treatment sequence.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
- JAMA Dermatology (Ezzedine K, et al.)Observational study · Supporting research, tier 3Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports defined research use and psychometric evaluation of facial and total VASI measures and the need to interpret score change in the studied context.
What it does not support
The analysis used sponsor trial data and included AbbVie authors; it does not establish one personally meaningful outcome, validate untrained home scoring or provide a treatment-change rule.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
- British Journal of Dermatology (Eleftheriadou V, et al.)Guideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the clinical history and assessment domains, evaluation of associated autoimmune conditions, its recommendation for thyroid function and antithyroid antibody screening, current classification context, treatment-option map, psychosocial assessment, medical photography and the limits of pediatric evidence. Its classification table defines mucosal vitiligo as the oral or genital mucosae. One mucosal site alone is filed as undetermined or unclassified. Its differential diagnosis table lists genital or extragenital lichen sclerosus among the conditions that can be mistaken for vitiligo. That table also lists eczema, psoriasis, lichen planus, pityriasis alba and piebaldism. It calls autoimmunity a contributor to the pathogenesis of vitiligo. It reports an earlier review finding a possible negative impact on intimacy and sexual functioning. It tells clinicians to discuss the psychosocial impact of living with the condition.
What it does not support
It was designed for UK care and reviewed literature through May 2019; it does not establish a universal testing plan, prescribe an individual plan, or establish current US labeling or coverage. Its differential diagnosis table is a list, not a method a reader can apply to their own skin. It does not say how to tell any two of those conditions apart. It gives no figure for how often vitiligo affects genital skin.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
- British Journal of Dermatology (Goulden V, et al.)Guideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
It supports that traditional NB-UVB fluorescent lamps emit a narrow UVB band peaking around 311 nanometres. It backs wearing UV-protective goggles and keeping UV scatter off people nearby. It records the consent form naming goggles and the same clothing at each session. It also covers clinical uses, how it compares with other light treatments, safety limits including sunburn-type reactions, and the added safeguards home phototherapy needs.
What it does not support
It does not provide a personal treatment plan, approve a particular home setup, or replace the instructions for your own device. SteadySkin never reproduces its treatment schedules.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.
- British Association of DermatologistsPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
It supports a plain-language explanation that NB-UVB uses a small part of the UVB spectrum, is used for conditions including psoriasis, eczema, and vitiligo, and is distinct from sunlight or a sunbed. It also supports what a unit asks of its own patients during a course. It asks them not to sunbathe or use a sunbed for the whole of it, and to reduce sun exposure so that skin does not burn. It asks them to report a medicine, a cream, or newly exposed skin such as a haircut. It asks them to arrive without perfume, deodorant, aftershave or other cosmetics, because some of those raise light sensitivity and can leave patchy discolouration for months. It carries the unit’s own account of repeated courses. It states that the full risk of narrowband UVB is not known, and that roughly one in ten people in the UK develop skin cancer. It states that a review becomes usual practice past a stated number of treatments, and that many treatments can bring the wrinkling and discolouration of photoageing.
What it does not support
It is patient education, not primary evidence for an efficacy claim. Its printed next review date was June 2025 and it has not been updated since June 2022. It is therefore used only for what it plainly states, and never as current guidance. It is written for a UK hospital unit whose nurses examine skin at every visit, so it sets no rule for a device used at home. Its numbers stay in this record rather than in the copy. Those are the sun protection factor and star rating it names, the hours it names, the treatment count that triggers a review, and the multiple by which it estimates lifetime risk. That multiple is stated there as an assumption that narrowband UVB behaves like sunlight, not as a measurement.
Claim-specific review for this source is still in progress. Only the source-level evidence and limits are shown here.