Source type
Shows who published the material and what kind of record it is.
Evidence library
Research, with the limits left in
A citation is useful only when you can see what job it does, how confident the claim is, who the evidence may represent, and what remains unknown. Start with the method, the population record, or the full source library.
Last updated
How to read this library
One source can do one job well and another badly
Evidence role
States whether the source supports clinical, coverage, specification, or workflow facts.
Confidence
Belongs to one exact claim, not to a publisher, treatment, or device as a whole.
Limits
Say what the source cannot establish and where applying it may require caution.
Evidence behind this page
Sources
Each evidence badge opens the source and its limits. The full list stays available here.
- AetnaPayer policy · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: This is Aetna's own coverage policy about its own plans, not an independent evaluation of phototherapy.
What this source supports
Supports that Aetna covers PUVA for severely disabling psoriasis after conventional therapy has failed. That means 10% or more of the body, or hands, feet, or scalp involvement. Continued PUVA is not considered necessary if psoriasis has not improved after two months. Office-based narrow-band UVB is covered without the same prior-failure language. Home UVB is medically necessary for people with severe, frequently flaring psoriasis who cannot attend on-site therapy, or who need to start treatment immediately. The page's own "Policy History" shows a last review date of 05/18/2026 and a next review of 02/11/2027.
What it does not support
Does not state a dollar cost or a specific plan's actual decision. Does not describe Aetna's vitiligo-specific criteria, which sit in a separate bulletin (CPB 0422).
- AetnaPayer policy · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: This is Aetna's own coverage policy about its own plans, not an independent evaluation of vitiligo treatment.
What this source supports
Supports that Aetna covers photochemotherapy (PUVA), excimer laser, and office-based or home narrow-band UVB for vitiligo. Coverage is medically necessary only after an inadequate response to at least one of topical Protopic (tacrolimus), topical or systemic corticosteroids, or topical Opzelura (ruxolitinib). Continued PUVA or NB-UVB is not considered medically necessary unless some follicular pigmentation appears within six months. The page's own "Policy History" shows a last review date of 07/16/2026 and a next review of 04/22/2027.
What it does not support
Does not state a dollar cost or an approval turnaround time. Does not say what a specific Aetna plan will actually decide for a specific member. Its own text defers Opzelura (ruxolitinib) coverage specifics to a separate pharmacy-benefit policy I have not located a text version of.
- Aetna (via PR Newswire)Payer policy · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: This is Aetna's own announcement of its own policy change.
What this source supports
Supports that Aetna added home NB-UVB phototherapy to its vitiligo coverage policy, effective around July 2026. It is covered as medically necessary for members who have not responded adequately to topical therapy. That matches the same step-therapy shape CPB 0422 itself states.
What it does not support
Does not add any criteria beyond what CPB 0422 already states. Is a press release, not the policy text itself. CPB 0422 is cited separately as the primary document.
- Aetna / CVS HealthPayer policy · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports Aetna’s public home-UVB DME criteria for severe psoriasis with frequent flares and stated access or prompt-treatment circumstances, and directs vitiligo readers to CPB 0422.
What it does not support
It does not guarantee coverage or state supplier, authorization, price, or rent-versus-purchase terms.
- Aetna / CVS HealthPayer policy · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports Aetna’s current condition-specific criteria for office or home narrowband UVB for vitiligo and its continuation criterion.
What it does not support
It does not guarantee a member benefit, identify the supplier, prior-authorization route, rental terms, price, or how another Aetna product applies the bulletin.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: US specialty medical association public-education page; no product or manufacturer tie.
What this source supports
Supports choosing a broad-spectrum sunscreen of SPF 30 or higher that is water resistant, and reapplying it every two hours and immediately after swimming or sweating.
What it does not support
Is general sun-protection guidance for any reader, not specific to vitiligo or to skin that has lost pigment. It does not state a fixed time limit, such as 40 or 80 minutes, for what "water resistant" means. It does not use or define the word "waterproof" - no sunscreen is labeled that way.
- American Academy of DermatologyGuideline · 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 guideline reports author relationships; it is not independent comparative proof for an individual choice.
What this source supports
Supports that methotrexate, apremilast, cyclosporine and acitretin are established systemic nonbiologic options considered in psoriasis care.
What it does not support
It does not select, rank or prescribe an option for an individual reader.
- American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on BioethicsGuideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports increasing a child or adolescent’s participation in health decisions in keeping with development, alongside parental permission and professional responsibility.
What it does not support
It is general pediatric ethics guidance, not a SteadySkin minimum-age policy, a jurisdiction-specific consent opinion or evidence for any Vitiligo treatment.
- AmeriHealth Caritas Louisiana (Louisiana Medicaid managed care)Payer policy · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: This is one Louisiana Medicaid managed-care plan's own coverage policy, not a national Medicaid standard.
What this source supports
Supports that AmeriHealth Caritas Louisiana covers UVA phototherapy, UVB phototherapy, and PUVA photochemotherapy as medically necessary for a named list of skin conditions, including psoriasis and vitiligo. Conventional therapy must fail first. UVB home phototherapy is medically necessary only for a diagnosed member unable to travel for office-based therapy. The condition must be severe, extensive, and refractory for at least four months. Treatment must be needed several times a week. PUVA home therapy is investigational and not medically necessary under any circumstance in this policy.
What it does not support
Does not represent any other state's Medicaid program, or any other Louisiana Medicaid managed-care plan. The document's own "recent review date" is 2/2023 and "next review date" is 5/2024. Both are earlier than when this claim was checked, so a newer version may exist that I have not seen.
- Anthem / Elevance HealthPayer policy · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports Anthem-family criteria for home UVB in psoriasis and vitiligo, including prior topical treatment, physician supervision, scheduled review, and expected long-term use.
What it does not support
The member contract and affiliate implementation control; the policy does not state prior-authorization, supplier, price, or rental terms.
- Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode IslandPayer policy · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports BCBSRI’s public noncoverage position for home phototherapy for dermatological conditions, including psoriasis, in its stated commercial and Medicare Advantage scope (policy last reviewed 10/15/2025) and its warning that group contracts may differ.
What it does not support
It is not a national Blue rule and may be superseded by a newer policy or member contract.
- Blue Cross Blue Shield of MassachusettsPayer policy · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the existence, title, and location of BCBSMA Medical Policy 059, retrieved and read in full on 2026-08-22 after an earlier attempt on 2026-08-12 failed.
What it does not support
It states home-setting ultraviolet B criteria for its commercial and Medicare Advantage members. It covers a home booth or a handheld narrowband unit, but not both at once. It sets separate office-setting criteria that name vitiligo. No coverage language is cited from it on any page: it is one regional plan’s policy, and the coverage pages are written to be plan-agnostic. It is not a national BCBS or FEP rule and does not guarantee a member benefit.
- 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. R28 offers a skin camouflage visit to people who want one. R10 to R14 name potent or very potent topical steroids as the first choice, with a topical calcineurin-inhibitor cream as an option for the face. These are different creams with different proof behind them. R20 names narrowband UVB as the first light option. It says the skin often does better on the face and trunk than on hands and feet. It says there is not enough proof to use any one current pill alone for vitiligo that is not changing. R25 and Table 2 keep cell grafting for vitiligo that is not changing and did not respond to other care. They also say a doctor cannot always tell if the vitiligo has truly stopped changing.
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.
- 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.
- Centene / AmbetterPayer policy · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports a public copy of Centene corporate DME guideline CP.MP.107 published by Buckeye Health Plan’s Ohio Ambetter plan (revised 08/2025).
What it does not support
Some Ambetter plans may adopt the corporate guideline, but the exact plan must be checked. The policy treats home ultraviolet panel lights (HCPCS E0691–E0694) as medically necessary for refractory psoriasis with a documented home-site rationale and least-cost appropriate equipment. It does not establish vitiligo coverage, approval under another plan, or rental terms.
- Centers for Disease Control and PreventionGuideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: US federal public-health agency; general population guidance, no product or manufacturer tie.
What this source supports
Supports general sleep-hygiene habits for the general population. A consistent sleep and wake schedule, in a cool and quiet bedroom. Turning off electronic devices at least 30 minutes before bed. Avoiding large meals, alcohol and caffeine close to bedtime. Regular exercise.
What it does not support
Is not specific to vitiligo, does not claim these habits treat any skin condition, and does not address a diagnosed sleep disorder, which needs a clinician.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Travelers' HealthGuideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: US federal public-health agency; general pre-travel guidance, no product or manufacturer tie.
What this source supports
Supports general CDC pre-travel guidance to pack prescription medications and medical supplies, preferably in their original bottles, to carry copies of prescriptions, and to check the Transportation Security Administration website for current rules on what medicines and medical devices are allowed in a carry-on before flying.
What it does not support
Is general packing guidance for any traveler, not specific to vitiligo or any topical treatment. It does not itself state a quantity limit or a carry-on-versus-checked-bag rule; it directs travelers to TSA for that.
- Cigna HealthcarePayer policy · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports Cigna’s statement that home-phototherapy coverage positions were removed because the associated codes were no longer clinically managed.
What it does not support
That statement is not an approval, exclusion, benefit promise, supplier rule, or current condition-specific criterion.
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Whitton ME, et al.)Systematic review · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Cochrane reviews are prepared to a published method and are not funded by a maker of any reviewed product.
What this source supports
Supports that 96 randomized trials covering 4,512 people had been published on vitiligo treatment when this review closed its search. Among the analyses of more than 75 per cent repigmentation, one trial of 47 people found oral ginkgo biloba better than placebo. Most included trials enrolled fewer than 50 people. Only five of the 96 reported all three of the review’s primary outcomes, which were quality of life, more than 75 per cent repigmentation, and adverse effects. No included trial measured whether repigmentation was still there two years later.
What it does not support
It reviews trials and does not recommend one. It does not establish any supplement as a treatment, set an amount to take, compare brands or preparations, or predict what one person will get. Its search closed in October 2013, so it cannot speak to anything published after that.
- DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · 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 National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for product labeling but not independent vitiligo evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the 0.05% cream identity, current tube presentations and product-specific warnings.
What it does not support
It does not approve betamethasone dipropionate for vitiligo, establish vitiligo benefit, or show that similarly numbered steroid percentages have the same potency.
- DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · 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 National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for product labeling but not independent vitiligo evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the psoriasis indication, 0.005% cream strength, current tube presentations, local irritation and dermatitis reports, the instruction not to use the cream on the face, contraindications for hypercalcemia or vitamin D toxicity, and calcium-related and ultraviolet precautions. Its Dosage and Administration section supports applying a thin layer twice daily, and that the label’s own safety and efficacy data cover an 8-week psoriasis treatment period. It supports that the label advises patients to avoid excessive natural or artificial sunlight and separately tells physicians they may wish to limit or avoid phototherapy in patients using this product. Its clinical-trial adverse-reaction data support skin irritation in about 10%-15% of patients (the most frequent reaction) and rash, itching, dermatitis, or worsening of psoriasis in about 1%-10%; post-approval reports separately support contact dermatitis, including allergic contact dermatitis.
What it does not support
It does not approve calcipotriene for vitiligo, establish vitiligo benefit, support a self-directed combination, or state a vitiligo-specific frequency, duration, or adverse-reaction rate. Its 8-week duration and adverse-reaction percentages are from psoriasis clinical trials, not a vitiligo population.
- DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · 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 National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for product labeling but not independent vitiligo evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the 0.05% ointment identity and product-specific potency, local-reaction, skin-atrophy, systemic-absorption, body-area and duration warnings.
What it does not support
It does not approve clobetasol for vitiligo, establish vitiligo benefit, or create a regimen for another product. Its Dosage and Administration section supports that treatment should be limited to 2 consecutive weeks and that amounts greater than 50 g per week should not be used, stated specifically to reduce the risk of HPA-axis suppression and local skin effects. It is one currently marketed product listed under its generic chemical name, not a brand-name label.
- DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · 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 National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for product labeling but not independent efficacy evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the US atopic-dermatitis indication, boxed warning, application-site effects, long-term-use precaution and instructions to avoid ultraviolet treatment and minimize natural or artificial sunlight. This label itself is a generic pimecrolimus cream filing (packager Oceanside Pharmaceuticals, a division of Bausch Health US, LLC), not the original brand Elidel label, so it also supports that a generic pimecrolimus cream is currently marketed. Its Dosage and Administration section supports applying a thin layer twice daily and re-examining the patient if signs and symptoms persist beyond six weeks; its boxed warning separately supports that continuous long-term use should be avoided. Its adult 1-year active-comparator adverse-reaction table (328 pimecrolimus-treated subjects) supports application-site burning in about 25.9%, headache in about 25.4%, nasopharyngitis in about 7.6%, and influenza in about 9.8% of that adult trial population.
What it does not support
It does not approve pimecrolimus for vitiligo or psoriasis, establish efficacy for either, or resolve off-label guideline discussion of supervised combinations. Its dosing and six-week re-examination window, and its adult adverse-reaction percentages, are stated for its approved atopic-dermatitis indication and trial population, not as a vitiligo-specific schedule or vitiligo-trial safety rate.
Litfulo (ritlecitinib): current US prescribing information and Medication Guide (opens in a new tab)
DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · 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 National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for current US labeling but not independent efficacy evidence.
What this source supports
Supports Litfulo identity, its current US severe-alopecia indication, boxed warnings, contraindication and other label safety boundaries. Vitiligo is not among the current US indications. Also supports the recommended dosage for the approved indication: 50 mg orally once daily, with or without food, with no loading dose or titration.
What it does not support
The alopecia label does not establish a vitiligo indication, vitiligo-specific event rates, individual suitability, coverage, a vitiligo regimen or approval in another jurisdiction.
- DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · 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 National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for product labeling but not independent efficacy evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the approved indication and product-specific local and systemic corticosteroid warnings for this ointment.
What it does not support
It is one current US product label, not a vitiligo indication, a class-wide substitute for every corticosteroid label or independent evidence of vitiligo benefit. Its Dosage and Administration section supports discontinuing once control is achieved and reassessing the diagnosis if no improvement is seen within 2 weeks; its Patient Counseling section notes pediatric safety and effectiveness beyond 3 weeks of use is not known. It is one currently marketed product listed under its generic chemical name, not a brand-name label.
- DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the defined US nonsegmental-vitiligo indication, limitations of use, boxed warnings, skin-cancer and ultraviolet precautions, and clinical-study labeling.
What it does not support
It also supports the labeled dosing instruction: "Apply a thin layer of OPZELURA topically twice daily to affected areas of up to 10% body surface area." It further supports the labeled re-evaluation point: "If the patient does not find the repigmentation meaningful by 24 weeks, the patient should be re-evaluated by the healthcare provider." It also supports the vitiligo-trial adverse-reaction rates at 1% incidence or greater: application-site acne 6%, application-site itching 5%, a common-cold-type illness (nasopharyngitis) 4%, headache 4%, urinary tract infection 2%, application-site redness (erythema) 2%, and fever (pyrexia) 1%. It does not guarantee benefit, establish suitability beyond the labeled population, authorize adding phototherapy, or state which reaction should prompt a call to the prescriber beyond directing patients to the Medication Guide and their healthcare provider.
Protopic (tacrolimus) ointment: US prescribing information and Medication Guide (opens in a new tab)
DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · 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 National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for product labeling but not independent efficacy evidence.
What this source supports
It establishes the US atopic-dermatitis indication, boxed warning, local effects, long-term-use precaution, and ultraviolet instructions for this product. Its mechanism-of-action section supports that tacrolimus binds FKBP-12 to block calcineurin phosphatase, preventing the T-cell activation that its boxed warning and local-effect data describe. Its local-adverse-reaction data supports burning in roughly 46-58% and itching in roughly 41-46% of studied patients, most often in the first few days and easing as treatment continues. Its Dosage and Administration section supports applying a thin layer twice daily and re-examining the patient if signs and symptoms do not improve within six weeks.
What it does not support
It does not approve tacrolimus for vitiligo or psoriasis, establish efficacy for either, or resolve off-label guideline discussion of supervised combinations. Its dosing and six-week re-examination window are stated for its approved atopic-dermatitis indication, not as a vitiligo-specific schedule.
- DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · 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 National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for current US labeling but not independent efficacy evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the current US indications and boxed safety information.
What it does not support
Vitiligo is not among the current US indications. The label does not settle a pending application, establish approval elsewhere or create a vitiligo treatment plan.
- DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · 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 National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for product labeling but not independent psoriasis evidence.
What this source supports
Supports that a generic tacrolimus ointment, in both 0.03% and 0.1% strengths, is currently marketed under this label (packager Padagis Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd, manufacturer LEO Laboratories Ltd), separate from the brand Protopic label cited above.
What it does not support
This label covers the atopic-dermatitis indication only; it does not approve tacrolimus for psoriasis or state a retail price.
- DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · 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 National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for product labeling but not independent psoriasis evidence.
What this source supports
Supports that TAZORAC cream 0.05% and 0.1% are indicated for topical treatment of plaque psoriasis (0.1% also for acne vulgaris). Supports the dosing: a thin layer once daily in the evening, starting at 0.05% with an increase to 0.1% only if tolerated and indicated. Supports the pregnancy contraindication - may cause fetal harm - and the requirement for a negative pregnancy test within two weeks before starting and effective contraception during use. Supports local skin reaction warnings (itching, burning, redness, peeling) and the instruction to avoid eyes, mouth, and mucous membranes and not to use on eczema-affected skin. Supports the photosensitivity warning to avoid sun, sunlamps, and weather extremes and wear sunscreen.
What it does not support
The label does not mention a generic version of TAZORAC cream, quantify how often a given side effect occurs, or state a retail price.
- DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · 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 National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company (Organon, formerly Dermavant Sciences) submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for product labeling but not independent psoriasis evidence.
What this source supports
Supports that VTAMA cream 1% is FDA approved for topical treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults, with no stated site or duration restriction, and is not for oral, ophthalmic, or intravaginal use. Supports the mechanism (an aryl hydrocarbon receptor, AhR, agonist), while stating the specific mechanisms by which VTAMA cream exerts its therapeutic actions in plaque psoriasis are unknown. Supports the dosing (apply a thin layer to affected areas once daily; wash hands after application unless treating the hands). Supports the PSOARING 1 and PSOARING 2 phase 3 trial results at week 12, defined as PGA success: a score of clear or almost clear with at least a 2-grade improvement from baseline. That was reached by 36% (n=340) of the tapinarof group versus 6% (n=170) on vehicle in PSOARING 1, and 40% (n=343) versus 6% (n=172) in PSOARING 2. Supports the remittive-effect finding: among the 73 trial responders who achieved complete clearance and had treatment withdrawn, the median time to first worsening (PGA of 2 or higher) was 114 days. Supports the most common adverse reactions in the combined psoriasis trials (683 on tapinarof, 342 on vehicle): folliculitis (20% vs 1%), nasopharyngitis (11% vs 9%), contact dermatitis (7% vs 1%), headache (4% vs 1%), itching (3% vs 1%), and influenza (2% vs 1%). Supports that the label lists no contraindications and carries no boxed warning.
What it does not support
The label does not approve tapinarof for psoriasis in anyone under 18, does not quantify how often any side effect leads someone to stop treatment, and does not state a retail price. Its pediatric approval is for a different condition (atopic dermatitis), not psoriasis.
- DailyMed, U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · 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 National Library of Medicine hosts DailyMed. The product company (Arcutis Biotherapeutics) submits the label to FDA, so it is authoritative for product labeling but not independent psoriasis evidence.
What this source supports
Supports that ZORYVE cream 0.3% is FDA approved for topical treatment of plaque psoriasis, including intertriginous areas, in patients 2 years of age and older. Supports the mechanism (a phosphodiesterase-4, PDE4, inhibitor, working by inhibiting PDE4 enzyme activity and letting cyclic AMP build up inside cells, while stating the exact therapeutic mechanism remains incompletely understood). Supports the dosing (apply once daily to affected areas and rub in completely; topical use only, not for eye, mouth, or intravaginal use; wash hands after applying). Supports the most common adverse reactions reported in at least 1% of psoriasis trial participants: diarrhea (3.1%), headache (2.4%), insomnia (1.4%), nausea (1.2%), and application site pain (1.0%). Supports the contraindication in moderate to severe liver impairment (Child-Pugh B or C) and the drug-interaction caution with strong CYP3A4/CYP1A2 inhibitors.
What it does not support
The label does not carry a boxed warning, does not quantify how often any side effect leads someone to stop treatment, and does not state a retail price.
- Dermatology and Therapy (Prajapati VH, et al.)Guideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Incyte funded the study, journal fee, and medical-writing support. The article says Incyte had no editorial control; authors also disclosed relevant company relationships.
What this source supports
Supports a current consensus map in which treatment choices depend on activity, extent, site, age, goals and burden, and in which selected systemic medicines may be considered off-label for unstable or rapidly progressing disease.
What it does not support
It is Canadian expert consensus with disclosed relationships, not US regulatory approval, comparative proof, a dosing guide or an individual treatment sequence.
- Electronic Code of Federal RegulationsRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the federal prescription-device labeling and distribution framework.
What it does not support
It does not decide whether a specific private transaction is lawful, replace state law, authorize a seller, transfer a prescription, or establish that a used unit is safe or supported.
- Electronic Code of Federal RegulationsRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the federal minimum internal-appeal opportunity and decision-time rules for ERISA-covered benefit claims.
What it does not support
It does not identify whether a reader’s plan is ERISA-covered, calculate a personal deadline, establish external-review eligibility, or provide legal advice.
42 CFR 422.582 - Reconsideration request (eCFR content current August 11, 2026) (opens in a new tab)
Electronic Code of Federal RegulationsRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the Medicare Advantage standard reconsideration request window and good-cause extension framework.
What it does not support
It does not decide good cause, calculate receipt dates, establish coverage, or replace the denial notice.
- Electronic Code of Federal RegulationsRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports Medicare Advantage reconsideration timeframes and automatic forwarding of an affirmed adverse reconsideration to the independent review entity.
What it does not support
It does not guarantee reversal or determine which timeframe applies to a reader’s case.
- Electronic Code of Federal RegulationsRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the federal Medicaid managed-care appeal filing window and general exhaustion framework.
What it does not support
It does not identify state-specific procedures, calculate a deadline, or replace the adverse-benefit-determination notice.
- Electronic Code of Federal RegulationsRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the federal range for requesting a state fair hearing after an adverse Medicaid managed-care appeal resolution and the exception when the plan fails timing or notice requirements.
What it does not support
It does not identify a state’s selected window or calculate a reader’s deadline.
- European CommissionRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that nationally authorised medicine status is held in member-state registers and cannot be inferred solely from absence in the central Union Register.
What it does not support
It does not establish monobenzone approval, availability, prescribing, compounding, or reimbursement in any particular member state.
- European Medicines AgencyRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the current European Union severe-alopecia indication and European safety overview. The reviewed European product information does not include a vitiligo indication.
What it does not support
It does not establish a later vitiligo decision, national reimbursement, a vitiligo regimen, individual suitability or status outside the European Union.
- European Medicines AgencyRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the European Union marketing authorisation dated 19 April 2023, the marketing authorisation holder Incyte Biosciences Distribution B.V., and the authorised EU indication wording: “Opzelura is indicated for the treatment of non segmental vitiligo with facial involvement in adults and adolescents from 12 years of age.” It also supports that the authorised EU population is narrower than the US one because it requires facial involvement.
What it does not support
It does not establish the separate US indication, Great Britain or MHRA status, national pricing, reimbursement or pharmacy availability, comparative superiority, individual suitability, or any use plan.
- European Medicines AgencyRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the EMA safety overview, including EU restrictions concerning tuberculosis or another serious infection, severe liver problems, pregnancy, and additional caution when no suitable alternative exists for older adults or people with cardiovascular or cancer risk. It does not calculate personal risk, establish reimbursement, or supply a vitiligo regimen.
What it does not support
The product-information document linked from this page was dated before the July 24, 2026 vitiligo authorization decision and must not be treated as the source of the new vitiligo indication.
- Excellus BlueCross BlueShieldPayer policy · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports how this payer reviews a non-cancer off-label request for an already FDA-approved drug. A commercial or exchange request is checked against DrugPoints or DrugDex first, then a cancer-drug compendium, then a published phase 3 randomized trial. A Medicare Part D request only accepts two named compendia; a published trial alone does not qualify there. A request that clears none of these steps is denied as experimental or investigational. Step therapy can still apply after an off-label request is approved. The policy also states plainly that a drug with no FDA approval anywhere is not eligible for coverage under it at all.
What it does not support
This is one commercial New York payer’s own published policy, not a nationwide rule. A different plan can use a different compendium, order, or standard. It does not say whether a specific drug’s vitiligo evidence would clear any of these specific tests, and it does not predict what any one plan will decide for any one patient.
- FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, and the European Medicines AgencyRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that FDA and EMA jointly published ten guiding principles for AI use in drug development on January 14, 2026. Supports that the first principle calls AI applications human-centered by design. It requires human involvement to protect patient safety and the reliability of what AI produces.
What it does not support
It is a general policy framework. It is not a decision about any one candidate drug. It does not evaluate rentosertib, BEN-2293, or any drug studied for psoriasis. It does not say AI has found a psoriasis treatment.
- Health Canada, Government of CanadaRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that provincial and territorial public health plans cover needed hospital and doctor care, and some surgery-dental work. Supports that plans do not automatically cover home care, vision care, dental care, prescription drugs, and ambulance rides. People pay for those themselves, or through private insurance. Some provinces and territories add coverage for certain groups.
What it does not support
Is a federal-level overview. It does not break down any one province or territory’s own drug list or extra-coverage rules.
- HealthCare.gov, U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid ServicesRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the general four-month request window and standard or expedited external-review overview where the process is available.
What it does not support
Supports that a standard external review is decided no later than 45 days after the request is received, or no later than 72 hours if expedited. Supports that an insurer is required by law to accept a decision in the member’s favor. It does not establish eligibility, identify the governing state or federal route, or calculate a personal deadline.
- HealthCare.gov, U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid ServicesRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports plain-language distinctions among EPO, HMO, POS, and PPO network designs.
What it does not support
It does not determine a home-phototherapy benefit, prior authorization, supplier network, member cost, or the rules of a specific employer or government plan.
- HealthCare.gov, U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid ServicesRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports a general US individual and group health-plan distinction between internal appeal and eligible external review, and the need to use the denial notice for instructions.
What it does not support
Rights, deadlines, urgent pathways and external-review availability vary by plan and jurisdiction, so this source does not supply a universal deadline or guarantee review.
- HealthCare.gov, U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid ServicesRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the general internal-appeal window and decision-time overview for covered individual and group health-plan decisions.
What it does not support
It does not identify a reader’s governing plan or jurisdiction, extend a notice deadline, or replace the denial notice.
- healthdirect Australia (Australian Government-funded)Regulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that Medicare pays 85% of the set fee for a specialist visit. Supports that a doctor can choose to charge more than that fee. Supports that private hospital insurance may cover part of the gap.
What it does not support
Does not give the set fee or gap amount for a dermatology visit. Does not track how those figures change over time.
- healthdirect Australia (Australian Government-funded)Regulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that Medicare will not cover any cost of a specialist visit made without a referral. Supports that a referral lets Medicare cover at least part of the cost. Supports that most GP-to-specialist referrals last 12 months, covering a single course of treatment.
What it does not support
Does not address referral rules for a telehealth-only or self-referred visit. It gives only the general 12-month figure.
- HumanaPayer policy · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports a current Humana Medicare Advantage and D-SNP prior-authorization requirement for the listed ultraviolet-light equipment codes.
What it does not support
It does not supply national condition-specific medical-necessity criteria, establish approval, apply to every Humana product, or state supplier and rental terms.
- Job Accommodation Network, U.S. Department of Labor Office of Disability Employment PolicyGuideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that disability disclosure at work is generally voluntary. There is no single right or wrong approach to disclosing. The need to disclose typically becomes evident once a workplace barrier related to the disability exists. Supports that under the ADA an employer generally may not require an applicant to disclose a disability or medical condition before a job offer. Supports that an employee can request an accommodation in plain English. Nobody has to name the ADA or say "reasonable accommodation." Documenting a request in writing can help if the timing or content is later disputed. Supports that it is usually in an employee’s best interest to request an accommodation before performance or conduct problems occur.
What it does not support
This is a general U.S. technical-assistance resource on disability disclosure. It does not name vitiligo specifically. It does not establish that vitiligo meets a legal disability definition in a given case. It does not cover state or local law, and it does not apply outside the United States. It is not legal advice for an individual situation.
- Job Accommodation Network, U.S. Department of Labor Office of Disability Employment PolicyGuideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports a general list of workplace accommodations sometimes used for skin conditions. For light sensitivity: alternative lighting, anti-glare filters, or UV protection. For temperature sensitivity: modified work-site temperature, dress code, fans, space heaters, or telework. For skin irritation: alternative personal protective equipment, custom-made uniforms, or limited exposure to irritants. For a suppressed immune system: flexible leave, telework, or extra workspace cleaning.
What it does not support
This page addresses skin conditions generally. It does not mention vitiligo specifically, and it does not address appearance-related or visibility concerns. It does not establish that any listed accommodation is needed, available, or appropriate for a given person. It is general U.S. guidance, not a vitiligo-specific list or legal advice, and it does not apply outside the United States.
- Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (Davis DMR, et al.)Guideline · 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 workgroup author relationships disclosed in the guideline, not to the journal itself.
What this source supports
It supports that phototherapy is a reviewed option for adult atopic dermatitis when topical care is not enough, and that current care also includes systemic classes such as biologics and oral JAK inhibitors, each with its own evidence, risks, and monitoring.
What it does not support
It does not rank options for an individual, provide a treatment plan or schedule, or establish pediatric recommendations. SteadySkin never reproduces its regimens.
- Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (Elmets CA, et al.)Guideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: A joint guideline from a specialty society and a patient group. Authors report their own conflicts in the published article. It is authoritative for evidence grading, not independent proof for one reader.
What this source supports
Supports a grade-A recommendation for narrowband UVB monotherapy in adults with plaque psoriasis. Supports thrice-weekly dosing for generalized plaque psoriasis at grade B, noting twice-weekly dosing as an alternative some patients prefer despite a longer course. Supports that patients receiving twice-weekly narrowband UVB achieved clearance in a mean of 88 days, compared with 58 days for those receiving three treatments a week. Supports that maintenance therapy, once psoriasis has cleared, can continue as a taper or as an indefinite treatment every one to two weeks. Supports a grade-B recommendation for combining acitretin with PUVA. Cites one 60-patient trial of severe psoriasis in which 96 percent cleared with combined PUVA plus acitretin, compared with 80 percent on PUVA alone, using a 43 percent lower cumulative UVA dose in the combination group. Supports that acitretin can also be combined with broadband UVB for generalized plaque psoriasis, clearing patches more rapidly than UVB monotherapy with a lower required cumulative UVB dose. The full article text could not be fetched directly (blocked to automated retrieval); these figures were cross-verified via independently converging secondary reporting of the published guideline rather than read directly from the publisher page.
What it does not support
Does not predict an individual reader’s clearance timeline or guarantee any specific outcome, and does not itself state a retail cost. The acitretin-combination trial is a single 60-patient study, not a larger pooled result. It does not establish the same benefit for narrowband UVB specifically; the broadband-UVB combination finding is reported separately, without the same trial-level statistic. Acitretin carries its own pregnancy contraindication and monitoring needs that this source does not detail.
- Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (Elmets CA, Korman NJ, Prater EF, et al.)Guideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: A joint guideline from a specialty group and a patient group. Authors state their own industry ties in the article. It grades evidence with authority, not proof for one reader.
What this source supports
Supports a top grade (Level I, Grade A) for calcipotriene foam. The same top grade applies to calcipotriene plus betamethasone gel. Both are used for 4 to 12 weeks, for mild to moderate scalp psoriasis. Supports a Level I, Grade B recommendation for adding calcipotriene/betamethasone to standard-dose adalimumab for 16 weeks, to speed clearance in moderate to severe psoriasis. Gives that same grade for adding it to low-dose cyclosporine (2 mg/kg/day) instead. Supports a Level II, Grade B finding: tazarotene with narrowband UVB works, and cuts the total UVB a course uses. The full article text could not be fetched; automated retrieval was blocked. These figures were checked against other reporting of the same guideline instead, including a summary site's own quoted text.
What it does not support
Does not show the same benefit for a biologic other than adalimumab. Does not show it above the low-dose cyclosporine studied. Gives no efficacy percentage for the combination against either drug alone. Sets no duration, strength or dose for a reader to follow without a prescriber. Its authors disclose industry ties. It is US guidance.
- Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (Elmets CA, Leonardi CL, Davis DMR, et al.)Guideline · 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 guideline reports author relationships with industry. It is expert guidance, not independent proof for one person.
What this source supports
Supports that this guideline covers psoriasis alongside other health conditions. Supports naming psoriatic arthritis as one of them. Supports naming heart and blood vessel disease. Supports naming obesity, high blood pressure, raised blood fats and diabetes. Supports naming inflammatory bowel disease. Supports naming uveitis, an inflammation inside the eye. Supports naming depression and anxiety. Supports that it asks clinicians to screen people with psoriasis for psoriatic arthritis. Supports that it asks them to check heart risk factors. Supports naming body weight, blood pressure, blood fats and blood sugar among those checks. Supports that it asks them to screen for depression.
What it does not support
Does not diagnose a reader. Does not say which linked condition one person will get. Does not read a test result or set a personal plan. Its authors report industry relationships. It is US guidance. It does not set practice in another country.
- Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (Menter A, Cordoro KM, Davis DMR, et al.)Guideline · 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 the author relationships disclosed for the guideline, not to the journal itself.
What this source supports
Supports that the American Academy of Dermatology and the National Psoriasis Foundation share one guideline for psoriasis in children. Supports that it covers topical, light and systemic treatment in that age group. Supports the reported link between guttate psoriasis in a child and strep throat. Supports checking a child who has psoriasis for other health problems. It names low mood and anxiety. It also names extra weight.
What it does not support
It does not judge one child. It names no product, no strength and no course length. It gives no figure for how many children get better. It is US guidance. It sets no coverage rule.
- 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
It supports current expert-consensus terminology, clinical assessment, disease-activity evaluation, treatment-goal discussion, and shared decision-making. Its modified assessment check list names where the patches are as a disease feature, and gives genital involvement as its own example. It records white hairs as an item of its own, apart from what the vitiligo has done in the past six months. Its classification table keeps mucosal vitiligo as a subtype, both across more than one site and at one site alone. It supports planning care around what is there to work with, and its example is hair that still has its color. It names stable vitiligo and active vitiligo as two different states that change the care plan. Its shared-decision steps ask what the patient wants from care. At the time it was written, one cream form of a newer drug type had just been approved. Pill forms of that same drug type were still being studied.
What it does not support
It is not independent comparative proof. It cannot diagnose a reader from a description or photograph. It gives no figure for genital involvement, and it does not name lichen sclerosus. It does not set out the Vitiligo European Task Force grading scale. It puts no figure on white hairs and predicts nothing for one person.
- 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.
- Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of WashingtonPayer policy · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: This is Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington's own coverage criteria about its own plans, not a national Kaiser Permanente policy.
What this source supports
Supports that Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Washington covers excimer laser for psoriasis of the scalp, face, neck, or hands. Two topical treatments from a named list must have failed first, over 12 weeks. For vitiligo of the face, neck, or hands, both a topical corticosteroid and a topical calcineurin inhibitor must have failed, over at least 12 weeks. Home narrowband UVB phototherapy is covered for qualifying conditions when ordered by a dermatology provider and the member has durable-medical-equipment coverage. Its own 2009 Medical Technology Assessment Committee review, citing the PLUTO randomized trial, found home NB-UVB phototherapy for psoriasis met its evidence criteria. That reversed a 2008 review that had found the evidence insufficient. Tattooing, depigmentation, and melanocyte transplant for vitiligo are excluded as cosmetic.
What it does not support
Does not represent any other Kaiser Permanente region's criteria. Kaiser Permanente operates as separate regional health plans. This document's own top-level last-updated date was not visible in the pages I could access. The 2008 and 2009 dates are its own cited review-history dates, used here as the closest available anchor, not confirmation the whole document is current as of 2026.
- Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic StatesPayer policy · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports Mid-Atlantic regional home-UVB criteria for listed conditions, including supervision, periodic follow-up, expected ongoing need, ability to operate the device, and inability to attend facility treatment.
What it does not support
It is not a national Kaiser rule and does not publish price or rental terms.
- Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic StatesPayer policy · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports Mid-Atlantic regional prior-treatment criteria for vitiligo phototherapy.
What it does not support
It must be read with the regional home-device policy and applicable evidence of coverage; it is not a national Kaiser rule or a guarantee of a device benefit.
- Medicare.gov, U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid ServicesRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports current Original Medicare context that covered home durable medical equipment requires an eligible order and Medicare-enrolled supplier, that assignment affects member cost, and that rental or purchase treatment depends on the item and program rules.
What it does not support
It does not establish home phototherapy coverage for an individual, a national rental price or term, Medicare Advantage rules, or a supplier’s inventory.
- Molina Healthcare of OhioPayer policy · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports Ohio Medicaid-specific vitiligo and home-UVB criteria (policy last approval June 11, 2025), prior authorization, physician direction, conventional-treatment history, access burden, and continuation review.
What it does not support
It was read in full on 2026-08-22. It names psoriasis and vitiligo among the diagnoses its phototherapy criteria cover. It states home UVB criteria under a physician’s direction. Those criteria are written for people who cannot be treated in an office setting, or for whom frequent office visits are difficult. It excludes home ultraviolet treatment for a stated maintenance pattern. It carries the coding disclaimer that listing a service or device code does not guarantee coverage, because the benefit document governs. Its printed next review date, June 2026, has passed. It must not be generalized to another Molina state, Marketplace, Medicare, or employer product and does not publish rental or supplier terms. Its treatment frequencies and travel-time threshold stay in this record rather than in the copy.
- National Association of Insurance CommissionersRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that a state department of insurance can investigate a complaint about unfair claim delays or denials, failure to honor a policy, or lack of timely communication.
What it does not support
Supports that it can require an insurer to correct a problem it finds. Does not establish that a department of insurance re-decides a medical-necessity determination, and does not set one process or timeline for every state. Does not describe self-funded employer (ERISA) plans, which a state department of insurance generally does not regulate.
- National Institute for Health and Care ExcellenceGuideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports psoriasis assessment across skin, nails, high-impact sites, life impact and joint concerns; same-day specialist assessment for generalised pustular psoriasis or erythroderma; and a treatment map that includes topical, phototherapy and systemic options.
What it does not support
It is UK guidance and does not diagnose a reader, create a US treatment sequence, determine personal urgency from a description, or establish current US labeling or coverage.
- NHS (UK)Regulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the current England NHS prescription charge of £9.90 per item. Supports that the charge applies per item rather than per prescription: three medicines on one prescription means paying the charge three times.
What it does not support
Does not address Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland. Each sets its own prescription-charge rules.
- NHS (UK)Regulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that a GP can prescribe some psoriasis treatments directly, or refer to a dermatologist. Supports that light therapy and medicines are options for more severe psoriasis, sometimes combined.
What it does not support
Does not give referral criteria, such as a percentage-of-body threshold, the way the vitiligo page does. Does not state a specific cost or charge for phototherapy itself.
- NHS (UK)Regulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that a GP may recommend sun safety, camouflage cream, or topical steroids first. Supports that a GP refers to a dermatologist when more than 10% of the body is affected by vitiligo, or when topical steroids have not worked. Supports that camouflage cream matching is free, and that some camouflage creams can be prescribed on the NHS. Supports that skin-graft and related procedures are not widely available in the UK and are not funded by the NHS.
What it does not support
Does not state whether dermatologist-recommended treatments such as phototherapy carry a separate charge beyond the standard prescription rules. Does not describe access outside the UK.
- Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Australian Government Department of HealthRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that the Australian government cuts the cost of medicine for most conditions through the PBS. Supports that most listed medicines come from a pharmacist for use at home. Supports that some higher-risk medicines are only given under specialist medical supervision.
What it does not support
Does not state the current patient co-payment amount. Does not say whether any specific vitiligo or psoriasis medicine is PBS-listed.
- Pigment Cell & Melanoma Research (Ezzedine K, 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 separating segmental vitiligo from nonsegmental forms and recognizing mixed and initially unclassified presentations. Classification is a clinical and longitudinal judgment. Its section on the Koebner phenomenon supports defining that phenomenon as patches developing at sites of previously unaffected skin that was specifically injured. It endorses the Vitiligo European Task Force classification of that phenomenon into history-based, clinical-observation-based and experimentally induced forms. Its section on mucosal vitiligo defines that term as the oral or genital mucosae. Where the patches are at one site alone, and especially a genital one, that section says a differential diagnosis of lichen sclerosus should be addressed by biopsy. It records that genital lichen sclerosus and vitiligo have been reported together.
What it does not support
It does not support self-classification from symmetry, one patch or a photograph, and it does not predict an individual response. On the Koebner phenomenon it records a general impression that the phenomenon and disease stability are related, then states that objective data are lacking. It also says scientific evidence is lacking for attributing vitiligo to daily friction from washing, dressing, personal care, sports, occupational activity or pressure from clothing. On lichen sclerosus it cites one reference from 2000 and calls a link a possibility, not a finding. It counts nothing and gives no rate.
- Prasar Bharati / newsonair.gov.in (Government of India)Regulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that Ayushman Bharat PM-JAY identifies over 12 crore poor and vulnerable families as the bottom 40% of India’s population. Supports that it gives each of those families 5 lakh rupees per year in health cover. Supports that this cover is specifically for hospital care.
What it does not support
Does not state that PM-JAY covers routine outpatient visits. Does not describe how a family confirms its own eligibility. Does not state typical out-of-pocket outpatient costs in India.
- Premera Blue CrossPayer policy · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports current Premera Individual Plan criteria for severe, extensive, refractory vitiligo, dermatologist prescription and records, FDA-cleared UVB-only equipment, appropriate size, ability to follow instructions, and stated access or cost circumstances.
What it does not support
It does not apply to every Premera or Blue plan or publish authorization, supplier, or rental terms.
- Premera Blue CrossPayer policy · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: This is Premera Blue Cross's own coverage policy about its own plans. Premera is one independent Blue Cross Blue Shield Association licensee, not a national Blue Cross Blue Shield authority.
What this source supports
Supports that Premera Blue Cross covers home UVB light box therapy, effective April 1, 2026 and last revised March 23, 2026. Covered conditions include a named list that includes psoriasis and vitiligo. The condition must be severe, extensive, and refractory for more than four months. It requires several treatments a week on a long-term maintenance basis. The device must be FDA-approved, UVB-only, and dermatologist-prescribed. The member must be able to operate it, or be unable to travel for office-based therapy, or home therapy must be more cost-effective. Home UVB is explicitly not covered for Seasonal Affective Disorder, convenience, or cosmetic use such as tanning.
What it does not support
Does not state office-based, non-home NB-UVB criteria. Does not represent any other Blue Cross Blue Shield company's policy. Each of the 34 independent Blue Cross Blue Shield companies publishes its own.
- The BMJ (Hopewell S, 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 transparent reporting of randomized-trial design, participants, interventions, outcomes, harms, analysis and participant flow so applicability and missing information can be assessed.
What it does not support
It is a reporting guideline, not a quality score, proof that a report is complete or evidence that a Vitiligo intervention works.
- Transportation Security AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: US federal security agency; general screening-policy guidance.
What this source supports
Supports that TSA allows medically necessary liquids, gels and aerosols, including creams, in reasonable quantities for a trip beyond the standard 3.4-ounce carry-on limit, but they must be declared to a security officer at the checkpoint for inspection. Also supports that items over 3.4 ounces that are not medically necessary can trigger an alarm during screening, so TSA recommends packing those in checked luggage instead.
What it does not support
Is general US airport-security screening guidance, not specific to vitiligo or any named product. It does not guarantee how any one checkpoint handles a specific item, and it does not apply outside US domestic security screening.
- TRICARERegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports TRICARE’s general home-DME requirements and the contractor’s stated role in rental-versus-purchase decisions only.
What it does not support
The page does not address home phototherapy devices, so it cannot support any claim that contractors have discretion over their coverage; it also does not promise coverage, identify a supplier, or state a member price.
- U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid ServicesRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports current Medicare context that DMEPOS orders use standardized elements and that supporting documentation is beneficiary-specific.
What it does not support
It does not establish that a home phototherapy device is covered, identify a code, apply to commercial plans, or replace the current plan and supplier requirements.
- U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid ServicesRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the first Original Medicare redetermination window, general decision timing, and existence of later appeal levels.
What it does not support
It does not apply to Medicare Advantage, establish that an item is covered, or replace the determination notice.
- U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid ServicesRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that each Medicaid state plan describes covered groups and services, reimbursement methods, and program administration, and that states submit amendments when changing program policy or operations.
What it does not support
It does not establish home phototherapy coverage, rental terms, price, supplier availability, or authorization for any individual or state.
- U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid ServicesRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports current Original Medicare explanations of supplier responsibility for maintaining and repairing rented equipment and the distinction between rented and owned equipment.
What it does not support
It does not identify a phototherapy supplier, promise a loaner, apply to every health plan, or supply the contract terms for a particular device.
- U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid ServicesRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports Original Medicare national coverage language for ultraviolet cabinets for selected patients with generalized, intractable psoriasis and local determination of home-versus-alternate-site justification.
What it does not support
It does not establish vitiligo coverage, a member-specific approval, supplier availability, cost, or rent-versus-purchase terms.
- U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid ServicesRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports distinguishing fully insured from self-funded employer coverage and identifying the plan or employer as the source of that answer.
What it does not support
It does not interpret a plan document, establish a benefit, or make a carrier medical policy controlling for a specific member.
- U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil RightsRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports general U.S. orientation that Section 504 prohibits disability discrimination in covered education programs and links to current eligibility and school guidance.
What it does not support
It does not establish that Vitiligo automatically meets the legal definition, determine a student’s eligibility or promise a specific plan or service.
- U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that participants in ERISA-covered plans receive or may request important plan documents, including the summary plan description, and that written requests can matter.
What it does not support
It does not apply identically to every coverage regime, interpret a specific plan, establish coverage for phototherapy, or provide legal advice.
- U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports current United States household guidance for keeping people and pets away and following source-specific cleanup, ventilation, collection, and local-disposal steps after a mercury-containing bulb breaks.
What it does not support
It does not confirm that an individual phototherapy lamp contains mercury, cover every commercial or clinical setting, replace local requirements, address device repair, or triage an injury or possible exposure.
- U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that the UV Index is a forecast of the expected risk of overexposure to ultraviolet radiation from the sun. It supports that the National Weather Service calculates the forecast for most ZIP codes across the United States, and that the EPA publishes it. It supports a scale from 1 at low to 11 or more at extremely high. It supports that a UV Alert may be issued for an area when the index is forecast to be higher than normal. It supports how the number is produced. The calculation starts with measurements of total ozone over the entire globe, obtained from two satellites operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. A model uses that ozone forecast and the incident angle of sunlight to calculate ground-level strength. It supports that the sunlight angle is determined by latitude, day of year, and time of day. It supports that strength is calculated across 280 to 400 nm, covering UVB at 280 to 314 nm and UVA at 315 to 400 nm. It supports that the result is weighted for the sensitivity of human skin using the McKinlay-Diffey erythema action spectrum, because shorter wavelengths cause more damage at the same intensity. It supports that the total is then adjusted for elevation and cloud. Ultraviolet intensity increases about 6% per kilometre of elevation above sea level. Clear skies allow virtually 100% of ultraviolet through, scattered clouds transmit 89%, broken clouds transmit 73%, and overcast skies transmit 31%. It supports that the total is divided by 25 and rounded to the nearest whole number to give the index. It supports that ozone depletion and seasonal and weather variation change how much ultraviolet reaches the Earth.
What it does not support
It is a description of a national forecasting model, not a trial and not a measurement on any person. It never mentions vitiligo and measures nothing about skin where pigment has been lost. Its worked example uses hypothetical wavelength values, which it says plainly, so no figure in that example is a real reading. Its elevation figure of about 6% per kilometre is what the model applies, and it differs from the 10% to 12% per 1000 metres in the World Health Organization guide registered alongside it. This site publishes that difference rather than choosing between them. Its cloud transmission percentages are model inputs, not a reading of the sky above a reader. It says nothing about clinician-directed phototherapy. It is a page that is revised in place, so it is registered as mutable and re-verified rather than pinned.
- U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports EPA’s United States consumer recommendation to use available local recycling for fluorescent and other mercury-containing lamps and its warning that state and local requirements can be stricter.
What it does not support
It does not show that every phototherapy light source contains mercury, identify an individual lamp, select a recycler, or replace current state, local, facility, or manufacturer instructions.
- U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that the UV Index scale used in the United States conforms with the international guidelines for reporting established by the World Health Organization. It supports three published bands with labels. They are 1 to 2 low, 3 to 7 moderate to high, and 8 and above very high to extreme. It reports what it recommends at each band. At low it says no protection is needed and you can safely stay outside using minimal sun protection. At moderate to high it says protection is needed, and to seek shade during late morning through mid-afternoon. At very high to extreme it says extra protection is needed and to be careful outside during those same hours. It supports the Shadow Rule as an easy way to tell how much ultraviolet exposure you are getting. If your shadow is taller than you are, in the early morning and late afternoon, exposure is likely to be lower. If your shadow is shorter than you are, around midday, you are being exposed to higher levels.
What it does not support
It is consumer guidance from a regulator, not a trial and not a measurement of any person. It never mentions vitiligo and measures nothing about skin where pigment has been lost. Its protection recommendations carry numbers, including an SPF floor, and each is reported here as the agency saying it rather than issued by this site. The Shadow Rule is offered as an easy indicator, not as a measurement of the index. It says nothing about clinician-directed phototherapy. It is a page that is revised in place, so it is registered as mutable and re-verified rather than pinned.
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports general U.S. orientation to disability-related workplace accommodation requests, documentation and individualized undue-hardship analysis.
What it does not support
The guidance predates the ADA Amendments Act and says it does not itself have the force of law; it does not establish that Vitiligo qualifies in a particular case or guarantee an accommodation.
- U.S. Federal Trade CommissionRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports general US consumer guidance to check seller, product, payment, return and marketplace-protection terms before an online transaction and to preserve dispute options.
What it does not support
It does not validate a medical-device sale, inspect a unit, determine lawful transfer, replace a warranty, or guarantee recovery after fraud or damage.
- U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · 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 product company authored the prescribing information hosted by FDA. It is authoritative for the historical label but not independent clinical evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the historical US indication for final depigmentation in extensive disseminated idiopathic vitiligo, the purpose and mechanism limits, permanence and distant-depigmentation warnings, listed reactions, contraindication boundary, and long-term unknowns. Re-read in full on 2026-08-21 for what it states about sun, which is in three places. Under Precautions, General, it states that following therapy with the cream the skin will be sensitive for the rest of the patient’s life, and that the person must use sunscreens during exposure to the sun. Under Clinical Pharmacology it states that exposure to sunlight reduces the depigmenting effect of the drug. The same section states that the histology of the skin after depigmentation with topical monobenzone is the same as that seen in vitiligo, the epidermis being normal except for the absence of identifiable melanocytes. Under Dosage and Administration it states that prolonged exposure to sunlight should be avoided during treatment, or that a sunscreen should be used. Under Carcinogenesis, mutagenesis, impairment of fertility it states that no long term studies have been performed to evaluate carcinogenic potential.
What it does not support
The archived label does not establish current commercial availability, approval of a compounded preparation, predictable uniform results, suitability, a personal plan, or current status outside the US. Its sun statements are the label instructing a patient under a prescriber; SteadySkin reports them as the label’s wording and issues none of them as advice. It sets no sun protection factor, no interval and no exposure limit, and it measures nothing about how depigmented skin behaves in sunlight beyond the sensitivity statement itself. Because it performed no long term carcinogenicity study, it establishes nothing about skin cancer risk after depigmentation in either direction. The document carries a printed revision of August 2000 and an FDA banner stating it may not be the latest approved label, so it is used only for what it plainly states and never as current guidance.
- U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that FDA posted an open Class II recall record for the exact Phothera 600/ClearLink population identified in that record and directs potentially affected owners to the firm’s official notice and technical-service route.
What it does not support
It does not apply to every Phothera product, every controller or every home phototherapy device, and it must not be used without checking the exact current model, unit identifiers, software scope, dates, and recall status in the live FDA record.
- U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the general US boundary that compounded drugs are not FDA-approved and FDA does not verify their safety, effectiveness, or quality before marketing.
What it does not support
It does not determine whether compounding is appropriate or lawful in an individual case, assess a particular pharmacy, or establish the quality of a particular monobenzone preparation.
- U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the importance of planning enrollment for populations historically underrepresented in clinical studies and making enrollment goals explicit.
What it does not support
It is draft, nonbinding guidance restored with a federal-site notice; it does not describe representation in any particular Vitiligo trial or prove applicability to an unstudied group.
- U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the distinction between Benoquin’s retained historical approval record and the FDA-reviewed statement that the branded product was no longer manufactured or distributed and its structured label had been delisted.
What it does not support
It does not establish present inventory, lawful access for one person, the quality of any compounded preparation, or status outside the US.
- U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the FDA definition that an approved biosimilar is highly similar to its reference product with no clinically meaningful differences in safety and effectiveness.
What it does not support
It does not establish that every biologic has a biosimilar, transfer an indication between products, choose a product, or determine substitution, coverage, availability, or personal response.
- U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports only that the FDA approval-package cover for NDA 220149 records an approval date of March 18, 2026 and identifies the approved indication.
What it does not support
The package does not explain or reconcile why the separate FDA Novel Drug Approvals for 2026 table records March 17, 2026. SteadySkin preserves that one-day discrepancy and does not use either record as evidence for what the other records.
- U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: FDA-approved prescribing information is authoritative for US labeling; it is product-specific regulator-approved labeling, not independent comparative clinical evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the current FDA-approved labeled plaque-psoriasis population, oral route, IL-23 receptor mechanism, and label precautions for Icotyde (icotrokinra).
What it does not support
The label states only “Revised: 3/2026”; it does not establish an exact revision day or the approval-action date. It also does not establish comparative superiority, personal suitability, insurance coverage, mature postmarketing evidence, or a class-wide conclusion. SteadySkin does not reproduce its regimen.
- U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the distinction between discovery, preclinical research, clinical research, FDA review and post-market monitoring in U.S. product development.
What it does not support
It is a high-level process overview, not a verdict on a specific emerging therapy, a statement that every research stage succeeds or a substitute for the current product label.
- U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that FDA publishes a device recall register a reader can search directly by firm legal name. On 22 August 2026 that search returned six Class II records with an ongoing status for the firm that makes these units, covering several phototherapy models and the ClearLink control system software. The register files them under that firm legal name rather than the brand printed on a device. It also spells the product line two different ways across the returned records, so a search on one product name alone does not return them all. Two of the six describe a software fault on resuming an interrupted treatment.
What it does not support
It does not establish that any record covers a particular unit. That depends on the serial numbers, item numbers, software versions and dates inside each record, and it does not show which of the listed models are sold for home use. It does not connect any recall to a refill, counter or authorization message, and it does not say a device is unsafe. It does not decide whether anyone should pause, resume or change treatment. The register is updated continuously, so the count and the status of each record must be re-read live rather than taken from this date.
- U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the exact US FDA approval action date for Icotyde (icotrokinra).
What it does not support
The approval list does not establish the full labeled population, comparative superiority, personal suitability, insurance coverage, or postmarketing experience.
- U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the current FDA classification of ultraviolet lamps for dermatologic disorders as Class II medical devices.
What it does not support
It does not validate a marketplace listing, establish that a particular unit is genuine or cleared, determine a lawful transfer pathway, or show that a used device remains serviceable.
- U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports FDA authorization of this device for repigmentation of stable depigmented vitiligo lesions in a defined adult population and trained professional setting.
What it does not support
It does not approve every grafting procedure, define stability for a reader or guarantee color match, durability or satisfaction.
- U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: FDA hosts the approved instructions supplied by the device manufacturer. They control product use but are not independent comparative evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the trained-professional setting, donor-skin processing, ablative-laser surface preparation, contraindications, warnings, aftercare responsibilities, and body-site and population limitations in the approved US instructions.
What it does not support
The instructions do not select a patient, center, lesion, laser, aftercare plan, or predict response, color match, recovery, or coverage.
- U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: FDA authored the regulatory summary, while the pivotal evidence was manufacturer-sponsored and submitted. The decision record is authoritative but the underlying clinical evidence is not independent.
What this source supports
Supports the FDA-reviewed device description, pivotal within-person randomized study of 25 adults, population and body sites, absolute repigmentation outcomes, adverse events, contraindications, limitations, and the fact that the studied RECELL area also received ablative-laser preparation and later narrowband UVB.
What it does not support
The study cannot isolate the cell suspension from laser preparation, establish use without later phototherapy, predict an individual result, prove complete repigmentation, or establish current authorization outside the US.
- U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that patients, consumers, and health professionals can use FDA MedWatch to report serious reactions, product-quality problems, product-use errors, and other serious problems involving human medical products, including medical devices.
What it does not support
It does not determine whether a report is required, prove causation, replace clinical care, or replace the manufacturer’s equipment-support route.
- U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that the FDA regulates sunscreens as non-prescription drugs against safety and effectiveness standards. Every sunscreen is tested by comparing the amount of ultraviolet needed to cause sunburn with the product against the amount needed without it. An SPF value therefore rates sunburn protection, and because sunburn is mostly caused by UVB, SPF is primarily a UVB number. Broad spectrum products also protect against UVA, and not every product is broad spectrum. A product that is not broad spectrum, or that is under SPF 15, must carry a Drug Facts warning that it has only been shown to help prevent sunburn. It supports that SPF is not related to time in the sun, but to the amount of light. It supports that the amount changes with the time of day and with latitude, so someone nearer the equator gets more of it. It lists the permitted active ingredients, mineral and organic together, including titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, and records that bemotrizinol was added in June 2026. It supports that there is evidence at least some sunscreen active ingredients are absorbed through the skin, and that the FDA has requested data from industry to confirm their safety. It supports that no sunscreen is waterproof. A product labelled water resistant must be tested, and must state on its label how long it remains effective while swimming or sweating. Every sunscreen must carry directions for reapplication. It lists the frequently forgotten spots. They are the ears, nose, lips, back of the neck, hands, tops of the feet, along the hairline, and scalp exposed by thinning hair. It points to a lip balm carrying an SPF for the lips.
What it does not support
It is consumer guidance from a regulator, not a trial and not a comparison of products. It measures nothing about skin that has lost its pigment, and never mentions vitiligo. It ranks no brand and no ingredient. Its own recommendations carry numbers: an SPF floor, a reapplication interval, a midday window and an amount to apply. Every one of them is reported here as the FDA saying it, and never issued by this site as an instruction. It does not establish that any listed active ingredient is unsafe; it establishes that the FDA has asked for data. It cannot say what any product will do for one person.
- U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that selected medicines and skin products can cause photosensitivity. Questions about a person’s medicines belong with a health professional or pharmacist. It names two forms. Photoallergy is an allergic reaction of the skin. It may not appear until several days after sun exposure. Phototoxicity is more common, and is an irritation that can occur within a few hours. Both follow ultraviolet light, from the sun or from a lamp. Its named groups are antibiotics, antifungals, antihistamines, diuretics and retinoids. It also names cholesterol medicines, anti-inflammatory painkillers, oral contraceptives and estrogens. It names phenothiazines, sulfonamides and sulfonylureas for type 2 diabetes. It names psoralens, giving methoxsalen and trioxsalen. It names alpha hydroxy acids in cosmetics.
What it does not support
It does not show that every listed medicine causes a reaction. It does not diagnose an unexpected skin change. It does not reconcile a medicine warning with clinician-directed phototherapy. It says plainly that not all people who take these medicines will react. It says that reacting once does not guarantee reacting the next time. Its list is not offered as a complete one. It names no product this site has checked against a reader’s own prescription. Its sun-protection paragraph is guidance this site reports rather than issues.
- U.S. Internal Revenue ServiceRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports general federal tax context that qualifying medical expenses may be eligible for certain tax-favored health accounts and that reimbursement and deduction cannot be duplicated.
What it does not support
It does not determine whether a specific phototherapy purchase qualifies, interpret a person’s plan document, or provide tax advice.
- U.S. National Library of MedicineRegulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that ClinicalTrials.gov is a U.S. government database whose sponsor-submitted study records can include status, eligibility, locations and contacts.
What it does not support
A listing is not government approval, scientific validation, proof of benefit, a completeness guarantee or a determination that a reader qualifies.
- U.S. National Library of Medicine (DailyMed)Regulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports two boxed warnings, the label’s strongest warnings. The first states that only physicians experienced in immunosuppressive therapy should prescribe cyclosporine, because of an increased risk of infection and malignancy. The second, specific to psoriasis, states that patients previously treated with PUVA face an increased risk of skin cancer on cyclosporine, and that cyclosporine can cause hypertension and kidney damage (nephrotoxicity). Supports a labeled psoriasis dosing range of 2.5 mg/kg/day to a maximum of 4.0 mg/kg/day, split into two daily doses. Supports that blood pressure and serum creatinine/BUN should be evaluated every two weeks during the initial three months of therapy, then monthly if the patient is stable. Supports that psoriasis patients with abnormal kidney function, uncontrolled high blood pressure, or malignancy should not receive cyclosporine. Supports that concurrent PUVA, UVB, methotrexate, other immunosuppressive agents, coal tar, or radiation therapy should not be given with it. Supports that most patients relapse after stopping.
What it does not support
This label, as currently published, does not itself state a fixed outer limit on how long a course of psoriasis treatment may run; it states only that relapse is expected after stopping. Does not predict an individual reader’s dose or response.
- U.S. National Library of Medicine (DailyMed)Regulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that Otezla (apremilast) is a PDE4 inhibitor that increases intracellular cAMP, and that its specific mechanism of therapeutic action is not well defined. Supports the plaque-psoriasis indication for adult and eligible pediatric patients who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy, regardless of severity, and the separate psoriatic-arthritis and Behçet’s-disease-oral-ulcer indications. Supports the warning against strong CYP3A4 inducers such as rifampin, phenobarbital, carbamazepine, and phenytoin, since rifampin reduced apremilast’s AUC by 72% and loss of efficacy may occur. Supports the reduced maintenance dose (30 mg or 20 mg once daily, by age/weight) for severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance under 30 mL/min). Supports the exact five-day titration schedule (10 mg day 1 AM, up to 30 mg BID by day 6) and the Otezla XR 75 mg once-daily maintenance alternative. Supports the depression/suicidal-ideation warning, the weight-loss monitoring requirement (10-12% of adults lost 5-10% body weight in trials), and the dosage-reduction guidance for severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. Supports the plaque-psoriasis trial adverse-reaction rates: diarrhea 17%, nausea 17%, upper respiratory tract infection 9%, headache 6%. Supports that no boxed warning is present on this label.
What it does not support
This label does not report an age, skin-tone, race, or ethnicity breakdown of its plaque-psoriasis trial adverse-reaction rates. It also does not state how often a reaction leads to stopping treatment, or predict an individual reader’s dose or response.
- U.S. National Library of Medicine (DailyMed)Regulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the boxed warning that Soriatane must not be used by anyone who is pregnant, or who intends to become pregnant at any time within three years of stopping. Supports contraindication in patients with severely impaired liver or kidney function, or abnormally elevated blood lipids, and contraindication for concurrent methotrexate (hepatitis risk) or tetracyclines (intracranial pressure risk). Supports that vitamin A and other oral retinoids must be avoided concurrently, and that phototherapy doses must be reduced when combined with Soriatane because of an increased burn risk. Supports initial dosing of 25 to 50 mg per day as a single dose with the main meal, with maintenance dosing adjusted by individual response. Supports the requirement for two negative pregnancy tests before starting, and two effective forms of birth control for at least one month before through three years after treatment. Supports a repeated pregnancy test every three months during that three-year window. Supports the alcohol restriction for female patients of reproductive potential during treatment and for two months after, due to conversion to a longer-lasting related compound. Supports common reactions in more than three-quarters of patients (cheilitis, dry eyes, skin peeling, dry skin, hair loss, nail disorder, joint pain). Supports serious reactions including hepatitis, pancreatitis, a pressure buildup around the brain, and depression. Supports liver-function and lipid testing before treatment and every one to two weeks until levels are stable.
What it does not support
This label, as currently published, does not itself state a fixed outer limit on how long a course of psoriasis treatment may run; it states only that maintenance dosing is adjusted by response. Does not predict an individual reader’s dose or response.
- U.S. National Library of Medicine (DailyMed)Regulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that Sotyktu (deucravacitinib) is a TYK2 inhibitor. Supports that it binds the regulatory domain of TYK2 rather than the catalytic domain, stabilizing an inhibitory interaction that produces allosteric inhibition of receptor-mediated TYK2 activation and downstream STAT signaling. Supports the moderate-to-severe plaque-psoriasis indication for adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. Supports the separate active-psoriatic-arthritis indication for adults. Supports the caution against combining it with other potent immunosuppressants and against live vaccines during treatment. Supports the recommendation to evaluate for tuberculosis before starting. Supports the precaution against starting during an active or serious infection, including active hepatitis B or C. Supports that no dose adjustment is needed for renal impairment or mild-to-moderate liver impairment. Supports that severe liver impairment is not recommended. Supports the fixed 6 mg once-daily dose with or without food and no titration schedule. Supports the instruction not to crush, cut, or chew the tablet. Supports the PASI 75 response rates at week 16 for deucravacitinib, placebo, and the apremilast comparator arm in both POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2 trials (PSO-1: 58% vs 13% vs 35%; PSO-2: 53% vs 9% vs 40%). Supports the week 24 PASI 75 rates for deucravacitinib versus the apremilast arm (PSO-1: 69% vs 38%; PSO-2: 58% vs 38%). Supports the infection-risk warning and the herpes zoster reports, including a multidermatomal presentation. Supports the lymphoma reports (0.3 per 100 patient-years) and the creatine-phosphokinase/triglyceride/liver-enzyme monitoring guidance. Supports the plaque-psoriasis trial adverse-reaction rates at week 16 (upper respiratory infection 19.2% vs 14.8% placebo, blood CPK increased 2.7% vs 1.2%, herpes simplex 2.0% vs 0.2%, mouth ulcers 1.9% vs 0%, folliculitis 1.7% vs 0%, acne 1.4% vs 0.2%). Supports that no boxed warning is present on this label.
What it does not support
This label does not report an age, skin-tone, race, or ethnicity breakdown of its plaque-psoriasis trial adverse-reaction rates. It also does not state how often a reaction leads to stopping treatment, or predict an individual reader’s dose or response.
- U.S. National Library of Medicine (DailyMed)Regulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the boxed warning, the label’s strongest warning, in four parts. It covers embryo-fetal toxicity, including fetal death; the drug is contraindicated in pregnancy for non-cancer use. It covers contraindication after a prior severe hypersensitivity reaction. It covers serious, sometimes fatal, reactions affecting the bone marrow, GI tract, liver, lungs, skin, and kidneys, which is why close monitoring is required. It covers death reported when tablets were taken daily by mistake instead of weekly. Supports the labeled psoriasis dosage of 10 to 25 mg orally once weekly, raised gradually to a maximum of 30 mg weekly, with folic or folinic acid supplementation recommended. Supports contraception during treatment and for 6 months after the final dose for females of reproductive potential, and 3 months after the final dose for males. Supports an adverse-reaction table from 12-18 week rheumatoid arthritis studies. At 10% or greater: elevated liver tests (15%) and nausea or vomiting (10%). In the 3%-10% range: stomatitis and low platelet count. In the 1%-3% range: rash, diarrhea, hair loss, and low blood-cell counts.
What it does not support
The adverse-reaction rate table comes from rheumatoid arthritis trials, not a study of people with psoriasis, and does not state how often any reaction occurs in psoriasis treatment. Does not predict an individual reader’s dose or response.
- UK Government legislation (legislation.gov.uk)Regulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that this regulation abolished prescription charges payable on Scottish prescription forms, in force from 1 April 2011. Charges were retained for English prescription forms presented at a Scottish pharmacy.
What it does not support
Does not address Wales, Northern Ireland, or England directly.
- UnitedHealthcarePayer policy · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the finding that UHC’s current public national commercial light-and-laser policy does not state condition-specific home-UVB device criteria for vitiligo or psoriasis.
What it does not support
Absence from this document is not an approval or exclusion, and product, state, code-level authorization, DME, supplier, and benefit rules may differ.
- UnitedHealthcarePayer policy · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: This is UnitedHealthcare's own coverage policy about its own plans.
What this source supports
Supports that this specific UnitedHealthcare policy (number 2026T0337GG, effective January 1, 2026) covers pulsed dye laser for port-wine stains and hemangiomas. It also covers laser hair removal or fractional ablative laser for named conditions. It states light phototherapy, photodynamic therapy, and related light or laser treatments are unproven and not medically necessary for acne, onychomycosis, rhinophyma, and rosacea by name. It does not name psoriasis or vitiligo anywhere in its coverage rationale.
What it does not support
Does not prove UnitedHealthcare denies phototherapy for psoriasis or vitiligo generally. A policy's silence on a condition is not the same as a denial. A separate coverage-determination guideline for home ultraviolet-light durable medical equipment likely applies instead. This site could not locate a current, directly linkable text version of that guideline.
- UnitedHealthcarePayer policy · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that UnitedHealthcare’s national Medicare Advantage prior-authorization list requires prior authorization for E0692, E0693, and E0694 only when the retail purchase or cumulative rental cost exceeds $1,000, and that E0691 does not appear on the list.
What it does not support
It is the national MA/D-SNP list; certain delegated or regional plans use separate lists, and it does not establish coverage criteria or approval.
- VA Pharmacy Benefits Management ServicesPayer policy · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the VA's own rules for ruxolitinib cream in nonsegmental vitiligo. It requires proof that topical corticosteroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors, or phototherapy, failed or caused a bad reaction. An adequate trial is at least six months of use. The VA can skip this step if the prior treatment is unwise, unavailable, or not possible. Also supports the 10%-of-body-surface application limit and that a dermatologist must prescribe or be involved.
What it does not support
This is a VA-only policy, not a private, Medicare Part D, or Medicaid rule. It does not say what any other payer requires. It also gives no national step-therapy standard, and does not state turnaround time, appeal steps, or cost. It does not prove these rules stayed the same after June 2023. The VA's own document says it gets updated as new facts appear.
- Welsh Government (gov.wales)Regulatory · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that Wales has provided free NHS prescription medicine since 1 April 2007. In the Welsh Government’s own account, Scotland and Northern Ireland later followed with their own free-prescription policies.
What it does not support
Is a Welsh Government statement, not a Northern Ireland primary source. It does not carry Northern Ireland’s own rule text or start date.
- World Health OrganizationPatient education · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports contacting emergency services or a crisis line when a person thinks they are in immediate danger of self-harm.
What it does not support
It does not identify a local service, assess an individual’s safety, or replace emergency help.
- World Health Organization, with the World Meteorological Organization, the United Nations Environment Programme and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation ProtectionGuideline · Regulatory / guideline, tier 1Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that the Global Solar UV Index is a measure of the ultraviolet level at the Earth’s surface. It names six things that change that level. The first is sun elevation. The higher the sun, the higher the level, so it varies with time of day and time of year. Outside the tropics the highest levels come at around solar noon in the summer months. The second is latitude, and the closer to equatorial regions the higher the levels. The third is cloud cover. Levels are highest under cloudless skies, but can still be high under cloud, because scattering can act like reflection from a surface. The fourth is altitude. A thinner atmosphere absorbs less, and levels rise by 10% to 12% for every 1000 metres. The fifth is ozone, which varies over the year and even across a day. The sixth is ground reflection. Fresh snow can reflect as much as 80% of ultraviolet, sea foam about 25%, and dry beach sand about 15%. It supports that the ultraviolet region covers 100 to 400 nm. It divides into UVA at 315 to 400 nm, UVB at 280 to 315 nm and UVC at 100 to 280 nm. All UVC and about 90% of UVB are absorbed by ozone, water vapour, oxygen and carbon dioxide. It supports that the maximum level falls in the four-hour period around solar noon. Solar noon falls between local noon and 2 p.m., depending on location and on daylight saving. It supports an international presentation in five categories. They are low at 1 and 2, moderate at 3 to 5, high at 6 and 7, very high at 8 to 10, and extreme at 11 and above. It supports that up to 80% of solar ultraviolet can penetrate light cloud cover. It supports that haze can even increase exposure. It supports that water offers only minimal protection, and that reflections from water can enhance exposure. It supports that levels are generally lower in winter. It supports that snow reflection can double overall exposure, especially at high altitude. It names early spring, when temperatures are low and the rays are unexpectedly strong. It carries a table of common misconceptions. That table includes a suntan being healthy, a tan protecting you, being unable to burn on a cloudy day, being unable to burn while in the water, and winter ultraviolet not being dangerous.
What it does not support
It is an educational and reporting guide for authorities and media, not a trial. It was published in 2002, and its reflectance and altitude figures are stated without a measurement range. It never mentions vitiligo. It measures nothing about skin where pigment has been lost, so it supports no statement about depigmented patches. It sets no exposure time for any person and predicts nothing for one. Its sun-protection categories are recommendations this site reports rather than issues. Nothing on it describes a prescribed course of phototherapy, and nothing on it is used here to weigh one.
- Archives of Dermatology (Hamzavi I, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the original development and initial comparison of the Vitiligo Area Scoring Index with patient and physician global assessments in a selected adult research population.
What it does not support
It does not make VASI a home diagnostic tool, establish a universal success threshold or support changing an individual treatment from a self-calculated score.
- Archives of Dermatology (Kurd SK, Troxel AB, Crits-Christoph P, Gelfand JM)Observational study · Clinical research, tier 2Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Funding and conflict notes were not checked beyond the published record. So the status here is set to not established.
What this source supports
Supports that one study used a UK family-doctor database. It tracked more than 145,000 people with psoriasis. It also tracked a much larger group with no psoriasis. Supports a higher rate of noted depression in the psoriasis group. Supports a higher rate of noted anxiety. Supports a higher rate of noted self-harm risk. Supports that the rise in depression showed up in mild psoriasis. Supports that the rise was larger in severe psoriasis.
What it does not support
Does not show that psoriasis causes any of this. Does not judge or predict one person. It counts only what a doctor wrote down. So it misses what was never raised in a visit. It covers one database and one span of years. It does not describe US care today.
- Bioscience Reports (Ji YZ, Liu SR)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: An academic review of the injury-triggered psoriasis literature. No product is named and no manufacturer is involved in it.
What this source supports
It supports that new psoriatic patches can form in previously clear skin after an injury such as tattooing, a surgical incision, or other trauma. This is the Koebner phenomenon. It supports that studies of controlled mild skin injury have produced new psoriatic plaques in about 25 percent of psoriasis patients tested. It supports that new patches following injury have been reported in about 25 to 30 percent of patients in the unaffected skin region studied.
What it does not support
It is a mechanisms review, not a study of tattooing or camouflage specifically, and it names no cosmetic product. It gives no timeline for how soon a new patch can appear after a given injury. It does not say who will or will not react. It documents that the reaction happens in a described share of patients studied, not a personal prediction. It sets no rule for whether any one person should get a tattoo.
- British Journal of Dermatology (Bakis-Petsoglou S, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that this small controlled trial found no statistically significant added benefit from its pseudocatalase preparation when both groups received narrowband ultraviolet B.
What it does not support
Funding independence was not established in this review; the trial does not prove every preparation ineffective, establish equivalence of marketed products or support self-directed light use.
- British Journal of Dermatology (Harris JE, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Incyte Corporation funded the study and states a role in its design, conduct, analysis and manuscript review.
What this source supports
Supports that facial repigmentation was often held for a further year. Among people who had reached near-complete facial repigmentation at Week 52, 38 of 55 randomized to continue ruxolitinib cream and 22 of 56 randomized to vehicle still held at least 75% facial improvement at Week 104.
What it does not support
It does not predict an individual result. Everyone in it had already responded, the rollover design set no sample size for a powered comparison between the two groups, and more people left the withdrawal group than the continuation group.
- British Journal of Dermatology (Lai YC, Yew YW, Kennedy C, Schwartz RA)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Funding and conflict-of-interest disclosures were not verified beyond the published abstract; the full text was not accessible to check.
What this source supports
Supports that a pooled review of 25 studies (2,708 people with vitiligo) found depression recorded at about one in four people (25.3%, 95% CI 16-34%) by diagnostic codes. It supports about one in three (33.6%, 95% CI 25-42%) by self-report questionnaires. It supports that people with vitiligo were more likely to have depression than people without it. It supports that the review's authors recommend clinicians check for depression and offer a referral.
What it does not support
Does not diagnose any one person or predict any individual's risk. Does not establish why the association exists. The review reports differences between the included studies. Data of this kind cannot show that vitiligo causes depression. Funding and conflicts of interest for the studies were not checked beyond the published abstract.
- British Journal of Dermatology (Thomas KS, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports a group-level benefit for the exact supervised topical-corticosteroid and home handheld-light combination studied in active limited vitiligo, alongside minority success, reactions and limited maintenance after treatment ended.
What it does not support
It does not create a general home plan, support other product-device combinations or predict an individual result. The topical-corticosteroid-alone arm used mometasone furoate 0.1% ointment, applied once daily on alternating weeks for up to 9 months. It supports 17% (20/119) reaching participant-reported treatment success at 9 months, and 3% (4/115) reaching the trial’s stricter blinded-assessed ≥75% repigmentation at 9 months. Skin thinning was reported in 2.5% (13/517) of participants across all trial groups, including one on placebo ointment. Over 40% of participants across all groups reported loss of treatment response by 21 months. It supports that participant-reported treatment success at 9 months was lower for patches on the hands and feet than on other body regions, without publishing an exact per-region percentage in its main results tables. The trial randomized 517 adults and children, aged over 5, with nonsegmental vitiligo covering about 10% or less of body surface area and at least one patch active in the prior 12 months, across 16 UK hospitals.
- Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the DERMIS-1 and DERMIS-2 phase 3 trial results at week 8: IGA success (clear or almost clear) in 42.4% (108 of 286) of the roflumilast group versus 6.1% (8 of 153) on vehicle in DERMIS-1, and 37.5% (99 of 290) versus 6.9% (9 of 152) in DERMIS-2. Supports PASI 75 (at least 75% clearer) in 41.6% versus 7.6% in DERMIS-1, and 39.0% versus 5.3% in DERMIS-2, both statistically significant.
What it does not support
This is a Canadian government health-technology-assessment review of the same pivotal trials the FDA reviewed, not a US regulatory document. It does not report results for any group narrower than the trial population as a whole (ages 12 and older), and it does not predict an individual result.
- Cytokine (Xerfan EMS, Andersen ML, Tufik S, Facina AS, Tomimori J.)Observational study · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Funded by Brazilian public research agencies (CAPES, CNPq, FAPESP grant #2020/13467-8, AFIP); no pharmaceutical or manufacturer funding is disclosed in the published record.
What this source supports
Supports a study of 30 people with vitiligo and 26 controls, using standard sleep and quality-of-life questionnaires (PSQI, ISI, DLQI, SF-36). Poor sleep and impaired quality-of-life scores were more common in the vitiligo group. Within the vitiligo group, higher insomnia-severity scores were associated with higher levels of one inflammatory marker (IL-17A). Prior narrowband UVB phototherapy was associated with higher levels of a few others (IL-4, IL-6, IL-10). The authors read this as a possible shared pathway between vitiligo, treatment, and sleep.
What it does not support
Does not establish how common poor sleep is for people with vitiligo generally: this is one 30-person sample at one center. Does not show that phototherapy causes sleep problems, or that treating a sleep problem changes vitiligo. The cytokine associations are measured in blood at one point in time, not a proven mechanism.
- Dermatologic Clinics (Spritz RA, Andersen GHL)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: An academic review of the genetics literature. No product is named and no manufacturer is involved in it.
What this source supports
It supports that vitiligo runs in families but is not passed on in a simple pattern. It supports that about 20 per cent of people with vitiligo have at least one affected first-degree relative. It supports that the risk for a first-degree relative is still low in absolute terms. It supports that the concordance rate in identical twins is about 23 per cent. It supports that vitiligo is polygenic: many genes each add a small amount, alongside non-genetic factors. It supports that genome-wide studies have found around 50 regions of the genome linked to vitiligo. It supports that many of those regions sit in genes for immune regulation, and some in genes for the pigment cell. It supports that the same immune genes are shared with other autoimmune diseases.
What it does not support
It is a review, not a test and not a prediction. It gives no risk figure for one named family. It does not support a genetic test that tells a parent whether a child will develop vitiligo. It sets no screening schedule, names no treatment, and does not diagnose anybody. Its figures come from studied groups of mostly European ancestry, so they may not carry across every population.
- eClinicalMedicine (Passeron T, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: AbbVie funded the study, and multiple authors were AbbVie employees. The peer-reviewed design and results remain sponsor-linked evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the reported randomized phase 2 design, 185-adult study population, facial and total-body outcomes, continued improvement during follow-up, and reported adverse events.
What it does not support
It does not establish approval, comparative superiority, reliable outcomes for individual hands or feet, long-term safety, or an individual result.
- Frontiers in Medicine (Abdi P, Anthony MR, Farkouh C, Chan AR, Kooner A, Qureshi S, Maibach H)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that a Wood lamp is a handheld device. It emits long-wave ultraviolet light. It supports a range of 320 to 450 nm, with a peak at 365 nm. It supports that the lamp carries a magnifying lens. It supports that patches outlined under a Wood lamp were much more prominent. That led to finding new patches not seen in ordinary light. It also led to finding that known patches had spread. It supports that the review grades the method as low cost, painless and easy to use. It grades it as rapid, portable and non-radiative, with results in real time. It supports that the review grades four limits. The first is false negative results, above all in darker skin tones. The second is that the result depends on the operator. The third is that lighting can limit it. The fourth is that uneven skin colour makes the spread of pale skin hard to judge. It supports one further point, made in the review’s section on ultraviolet light photography. Vitiligo shows up well in those photographs because the skin fluoresces more. That is because the pigment that would sit over it is gone.
What it does not support
It is a systematic review of ways to measure and diagnose vitiligo in people who already have it. It is not a trial. It measures nothing on any one reader. Its Wood lamp material sits inside the section on ultraviolet light photography. There is no separate Wood lamp section. Its sentence about fluorescence and missing pigment is written about photography. So it is not a Wood lamp finding. It is not a statement about what in the skin makes the glow. It never names biopterins and does not settle that question. It describes a clinical exam. It measures no venue light fitting. It sets no length of time that is safe under any lamp. It carries no finding about harm to skin or eyes from a black light. So it supports no part of a safety conclusion. It measures nothing about how visible a patch is to another person. Its false negative limit in darker skin tones is a limit of the method. It is not a prediction about any reader.
- International Immunopharmacology (Liu X, Yao Z, Wang Y, Chai L, Zhou X)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Funding independence was not established in this review; the authors are affiliated with a single academic center and no commercial sponsor was identified.
What this source supports
Supports that this review pooled fourteen trials and within-patient studies, 642 patients. Each tested a vitamin D analog (calcipotriol or tacalcitol) added to phototherapy, against phototherapy alone, for vitiligo. Supports that adding either analog to narrowband UVB beat narrowband UVB alone on three measures: more patients responding (RR 1.67), less treatment failure (RR 0.43), and more excellent responses (RR 7.48). Supports that, broken out by analog, tacalcitol plus narrowband UVB had a larger effect on response (RR 2.25) than calcipotriol plus narrowband UVB (RR 1.24). That gap between the two analogs was itself statistically significant (p = 0.002). Supports that the review did not find better results when a vitamin D analog was combined with PUVA or excimer light instead. Supports that reported side effects across the pooled studies were minor and temporary.
What it does not support
The pooled, either-analog headline figure (RR 1.67) is not a calcipotriol-specific result. The review’s own by-analog breakdown shows calcipotriol’s effect (RR 1.24) was smaller than tacalcitol’s. It does not establish benefit for calcipotriol combined with PUVA or excimer light, predict an individual result, or set a dose or schedule.
- International Psoriasis CouncilGuideline · Clinical research, tier 2Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The International Psoriasis Council names its corporate members on its own site (psoriasiscouncil.org/about/corporate-members/, checked 2026-09-11). The top tier names AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Eli Lilly, Novartis and Takeda. LEO Pharma, UCB, Almirall, Sun Pharma, Amgen, Alumis, Arcutis and Oruka sit below them. Those firms make the drugs this severity rule opens the door to. A wider rule on who qualifies is a wider market for them. The page says nothing about how that money relates to IPC independence.
What this source supports
Supports that IPC dropped the mild, moderate and severe scale. In its place a person is a candidate for topical therapy, or a candidate for systemic therapy. Supports that any one of three criteria is enough to be a candidate for systemic therapy. The first is psoriasis on 10% or more of the body surface. The second is psoriasis on a high-impact site. IPC names those sites as the face, palms, soles, genitalia, scalp and nails. The third is failure of topical therapy. Supports that IPC defines that failure in writing. It is not reaching clear or almost-clear skin after two four-week courses in a row. IPC gives clear or almost-clear as 1% or less body surface, with a physician global assessment of 0 or 1. Supports the source paper. It is Strober B, Ryan C, van de Kerkhof P, et al. Recategorization of psoriasis severity: Delphi consensus from the International Psoriasis Council. J Am Acad Dermatol 2020 Jan;82(1):117-122. Supports that IPC's own June 2025 teaching deck lists payers among the groups it set out to move. That deck also names refusal to pay as a result of the older scale.
What it does not support
Does not set any health plan's coverage rule. This is a professional-society consensus. It is not a regulation and not a plan document. Does not say which systemic treatment follows once a person meets a criterion. It sets no dose, no frequency and no schedule. Does not give the number of experts who voted, the response rate, or their conflict-of-interest disclosures. IPC's own June 2025 deck states the body-surface threshold two ways. Its criteria summary says 10% or more. The slide expanding that criterion says above 10%. Does not establish that a given reader meets a criterion. It predicts nothing about what a plan will decide.
- Italian Journal of Dermatology and Venereology (Di Altobrando A, Vara G, Filippi F, Sacchelli L, Patrizi A, Bardazzi F)Observational study · Clinical research, tier 2Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The full text, including any funding or competing-interest disclosure, is not open access; only the indexed PubMed abstract could be verified.
What this source supports
Supports that a case-control study followed 201 married or divorced people: 100 with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, 101 without. A significantly higher number of the psoriasis group was divorced. Supports that people with psoriasis scored lower than the comparison group on every question of the Quality Marriage Index, and on its total score. Supports that the survey question about how happy the marriage was weighed more heavily for people without psoriasis. Supports that the question about how strong the marriage was weighed more heavily for people with psoriasis.
What it does not support
Does not give a divorce rate or percentage for either group - only that the psoriasis group's number was significantly higher. One case-control study of 201 people, all from Italy. Studied moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis only. Compares two groups on average; it does not predict any one relationship.
- JAMA Dermatology (Bae JM, et al.)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the separate pooled repigmentation rates and participant counts the review reports for narrowband UVB and PUVA at 3, 6 and 12 months, and the narrowband UVB rates pooled by body region after at least 6 months. Each pooled figure rests on the subset of studies that reported that measure at that time, not on the full review. It also supports plainly labelled arithmetic complements of those reported rates.
What it does not support
The pooled arms are single-group, so they describe what happened to those groups, not what the light caused. The review planned an intention-to-treat count and kept people who stopped early where it could; otherwise it used the group described at the final assessment, so no pooled figure is guaranteed to cover every enrolled participant. It does not report how many people worsened during treatment, does not predict an individual course, and sets no device, schedule or dose.
- JAMA Dermatology (Ju HJ, et al.)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that multiple surgical techniques have been studied for selected stable vitiligo and that reported response and adverse effects vary by method and study.
What it does not support
Much of the evidence is nonrandomized and an author reported industry relationships; the review does not determine stability, eligibility, color match, durability or individual outcome.
- JAMA Dermatology (Kong EL, Buzney EA)Observational study · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports a modeling study of 500,000 simulated adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (mean baseline PASI 20.2). It compares biologic therapy, office-based phototherapy, home phototherapy, and a step-therapy plan. Supports mean yearly out-of-pocket costs of $2,000 for biologics, $5,004 for office phototherapy, and $1,450 for home phototherapy. Supports mean total yearly costs (patient plus payer) of $84,034 for biologics, $14,760 for office phototherapy, and $6,222 for home phototherapy. Supports mean PASI drops at 32 weeks of 91.6% for biologics, 71.1% for phototherapy, and 95.2% for the step-therapy plan. Supports mean QALY gains of 0.24, 0.18, and 0.23 in that same order.
What it does not support
Does not report outcomes for an individual reader: this is a simulated population, not a survey of real patient bills or real trial follow-up. It does not state what one reader’s own insurance plan will charge.
- JAMA Dermatology (Lee JH, et al.)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports pooled group-level repigmentation outcomes for topical calcineurin inhibitors alone and with phototherapy, including variation by body area.
What it does not support
Considerable study heterogeneity limits product-specific and individual inference, and the review does not override current product labels or prove one medicine superior. Supports the exact pooled figures: 55.0% (560 patients, 21 studies) reached at least a mild (>=25%) response, 38.5% (619 patients, 23 studies) reached a moderate (>=50%) response, and 18.1% (520 patients, 19 studies) reached a marked (>=75%) response using a calcineurin inhibitor alone, versus 47.5% marked response when combined with phototherapy. Supports a median treatment duration of 3 months (range 2-7 months) across the pooled studies.
- Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft (Dawid M, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that this randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled crossover study enrolled 20 adults with symmetrical vitiligo patches on the extremities (no facial patches), each using pimecrolimus cream on one side and vehicle on the other, twice daily, for 6 months. It supports that modest (roughly 1%-25%) repigmentation appeared at month 2 in 12 of 17 evaluable pimecrolimus-treated sides versus 9 of 17 vehicle-treated sides. It supports that by month 6 only 3 of 14 pimecrolimus-treated sides versus 2 of 14 vehicle-treated sides still showed improvement, and that the study found no statistically significant difference in mean target-patch size between pimecrolimus and vehicle. It supports that treatment was well tolerated, with no treatment-related adverse events and no application-site skin atrophy reported in this small sample.
What it does not support
It does not settle efficacy for facial patches, children, other populations, larger sample sizes, or combinations with phototherapy. An author affiliation creates a commercial-independence limitation, and its small size (20 people) cannot rule out an effect a larger trial might detect, or an uncommon adverse reaction.
- Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (Hasan Z, Pathania YS)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The authors declared no funding and no conflicts of interest.
What this source supports
Supports that vitiligo starting at 30 or older is often stable. Most people had no new spots for at least two years. It supports that other health issues, like thyroid trouble and diabetes, showed up more often in this group. It supports that treatment, including phototherapy, still worked well. Based on five studies of patient charts, 1,099 people in total. The studies did not agree on what age counts as "late onset" - some used 30, some used 50.
What it does not support
Does not diagnose any one person. Does not set a screening rule, predict your own course, or replace a clinician’s exam and testing.
- Journal of Dermatological Treatment (Esfandiarpour I, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports a reported difference for selected facial lesions, but not other body areas, when pimecrolimus was added to supervised light treatment in this small study.
What it does not support
Commercial independence was not established in this review; the study does not override the US label warning, establish monotherapy benefit, generalize to every body site or provide a self-directed combination plan.
- Journal of Investigative Dermatology (Dalgard FJ, Gieler U, Tomas-Aragones L)Observational study · Clinical research, tier 2Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Funding and conflict notes were not checked beyond the published record. So the status here is set to not established.
What this source supports
Supports that skin-clinic patients in 13 European countries were screened. They were screened for low mood, for worry, and for thoughts of self-harm. A group with no skin problem was screened too. Supports that low mood was about twice as common in the patient group. Supports that worry was more common in the patient group. Supports that thoughts of self-harm were more common there too. Supports that psoriasis was one of the skin problems in the study.
What it does not support
Does not split psoriasis out from the other skin problems. Does not give a figure for psoriasis alone. It looked at people at one point in time. So it cannot show what came first. Does not judge or predict one person. It was run in Europe and does not describe US care today.
- Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (Ezzedine K, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Pfizer sponsored the study; several authors were Pfizer employees or consultants, and other authors disclosed company relationships.
What this source supports
Supports the randomized phase 2 design, 364 treated adults with active nonsegmental vitiligo, group-level facial outcome, reported study safety through the extension, and the explicit exclusion of people with stable-only vitiligo.
What it does not support
The sponsor-linked trial does not establish a vitiligo approval, direct superiority over another treatment, stable-vitiligo outcomes, reliable results for every body site, long-term safety or an individual result.
- Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (Pandya AG, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Incyte sponsored the study; several authors were Incyte employees or shareholders, and other authors disclosed company relationships.
What this source supports
Supports the randomized phase 2 design, 171 adults with extensive nonsegmental vitiligo, group-level total-body outcome, continued improvement in the extension, reported study safety and the explicit limitation of limited demographic diversity.
What it does not support
The sponsor-linked trial does not establish approval, direct superiority over another treatment, every body-site outcome, a full commercial-product safety profile, long-term safety or an individual result.
- Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (Middelkamp-Hup MA, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The published record read here does not state who funded the trial or what relationship the authors had with the extract’s maker, so independence is recorded as not established rather than assumed.
What this source supports
Supports that 50 people with vitiligo vulgaris were randomly assigned to oral Polypodium leucotomos extract or to placebo, each alongside narrowband UVB, for 25 to 26 weeks. Head and neck repigmentation was 44 per cent with the extract and 27 per cent with placebo, which the authors report as P = 0.06. The differences at the trunk, at the arms and legs, and at the hands and feet were between 4 and 6 percentage points and were not significant. The authors describe the head and neck finding as a clear trend.
What it does not support
A P value of 0.06 does not establish the effect. The trial tested one extract taken together with narrowband UVB, so it says nothing about the extract used on its own, about another brand or preparation, or about a site other than the head and neck. The authors suggest the effect may be larger in lighter skin types, which is a suggestion in their discussion and not a finding. It sets no amount and predicts nothing for one person.
- Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (Passeron T, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Incyte Corporation funded the analysis, two of its employees are authors, and it reports the company’s own phase 3 programme.
What this source supports
Supports that repigmentation differed by body region in the pooled phase 3 data, and that hands and feet responded least. At Week 52, among people who applied ruxolitinib cream only, 68.1% reached at least 50% improvement on the head and neck excluding the face, 38.2% on the hands and 29.3% on the feet.
What it does not support
It is a regional breakdown of one company programme reported as a letter, not a trial designed to compare body areas or to compare this cream with anything else. It does not predict what any one area will do.
- New England Journal of Medicine (Rosmarin D, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports examining the enrolled populations, skin-type reporting, inclusion criteria and defined outcomes of two pivotal trials when discussing applicability.
What it does not support
The trials were funded by Incyte and studied a selected nonsegmental-Vitiligo population; they do not establish results for excluded populations or support an individual response prediction.
- New England Journal of Medicine (Rosmarin D, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports greater prespecified facial and whole-body repigmentation outcomes with ruxolitinib cream than vehicle in the studied nonsegmental-vitiligo population.
What it does not support
The trials were funded by Incyte and do not guarantee individual benefit, establish broad comparative superiority or answer every long-term and outside-population question.
- Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine (Ada S, Sahin S, Boztepe G, Karaduman A, Kolemen F)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Funding independence was not established in this review.
What this source supports
Supports that this trial enrolled 20 patients with generalized vitiligo. It compared two sides of the body, within the same patient, single-blinded. Each patient received narrowband UVB, on a clinician-set weekly schedule, up to 96 sessions total, on both sides. Calcipotriol 0.005% went on one side only, twice daily. Supports that 55% (11 of 20) of patients reached cosmetically acceptable repigmentation overall, counting both sides together. Supports that the side without calcipotriol did significantly better than the calcipotriol side at the 24th session. Supports that no significant difference between the two sides was found at the 48th, 72nd, or 96th sessions.
What it does not support
It does not find an added benefit from calcipotriol at any session count studied. Its one early-session finding favored the side without calcipotriol. It is one small trial of one regimen. It cannot rule out a different result in a larger group, a different vitiligo pattern, or a different phototherapy schedule, and it is not a prediction for one person.
- Pigment Cell Research (Alkhateeb A, Fain PR, Thody A, Bennett DC, Spritz RA)Observational study · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: An academic family survey. No manufacturer took part and no product is named in it.
What this source supports
It supports that vitiligo clusters in families without following a single-gene pattern. It supports that most people with vitiligo in this survey had no affected first-degree relative. It supports that the concordance rate among identical twins was about 23 per cent. It supports that autoimmune thyroid disease, adult-onset type 1 diabetes, pernicious anaemia, Addison disease, systemic lupus erythematosus and psoriasis were reported more often in these families than expected. It supports naming those conditions as the ones that come up in a family history.
What it does not support
It is a survey of white probands and their relatives, so its figures may not carry across other populations. It relies on what families reported, not on examining every relative. It gives no risk figure for one named child. It is more than twenty years old. It does not diagnose anybody, name a treatment, or set a screening schedule.
- PLOS ONE (Armstrong AW, Schupp C, Wu J, Bebo B)Observational study · Clinical research, tier 2Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The lead author disclosed research grants and/or consultant honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, and Janssen. The paper states the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
What this source supports
Supports that in a National Psoriasis Foundation survey from 2003-2011, of 5,604 patients, 12% were unemployed. Of those not working, 92% named psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis as the reason. Supports that 49% of employed patients said they missed work often because of psoriasis or its treatment. Also supports that patients with severe psoriasis were about 1.7 times as likely to be unemployed as patients with mild psoriasis.
What it does not support
A patient survey, not a random sample of everyone with psoriasis. The authors note that patients tied to a patient group may notice quality-of-life effects more than other patients do. Reasons for not working were self-reported, not checked. It does not predict any one person’s job or attendance.
- PLOS ONE (Henning SW, Jaishankar D, Barse LW, et al.)Observational study · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Funded by a National Cancer Institute grant. The article states the funder had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, the decision to publish, or manuscript preparation. The authors declared no competing interests.
What this source supports
Supports that a group of 100 people with vitiligo felt more stress on average than 25 matched people without it (score 19.3 vs 13.8). Women in the vitiligo group felt more stress than men in it (21.53 vs 19.4). The study found no link between stress score and either disease activity or how much skin was affected. Depression showed up at similar rates before and after diagnosis. The authors read that as pointing to something shared underneath, not one causing the other.
What it does not support
Does not show that stress causes vitiligo to start or spread, or that less stress changes vitiligo. This is one survey of self-reported stress over the past month, not a body test. The authors say the design cannot prove cause and effect. Does not predict any one person's course.
- PLOS ONE (Kussainova A, Kassym L, Akhmetova A, Glushkova N, Sabirov U, Adilgozhina S, Tuleutayeva R, Semenova Y)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Funding and conflict-of-interest disclosures were not verified beyond the published abstract and results summary.
What this source supports
Supports that a pooled review of 15 cross-sectional studies (1,176 people with vitiligo) found anxiety reported in 35.8% of people with vitiligo overall. It supports a higher rate in women (47.32%) than men (42.4%). It supports that the rate varied widely by region (13.73% to 33.29%). It supports that anxiety-screening tools varied widely across the studies.
What it does not support
Does not establish that vitiligo raises anxiety risk above the general population. This review's own comparison against people without vitiligo (odds ratio 1.13, 95% CI 0.75-1.70) was not statistically significant. Does not diagnose any one person or predict an individual's risk. The studies used many different screening tools, which the authors say may explain some of the spread in results.
- PMC (National Library of Medicine)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports a pooled PASI75 response rate of 70.5% (95% CI 65-75%) from nine studies of narrowband UVB in psoriasis, covering roughly 1,334 participants with Fitzpatrick skin types III through V, mostly from Asia. Supports that studied regimens ranged from twice weekly for eight weeks to three times weekly for twelve weeks. Supports that one included study reached 93.3% target plaque clearance by 12 weeks when narrowband UVB was combined with topical tacalcitol. Supports that another study reported a mean time to clearance of about 32 days when combined with topical tazarotene. Supports post-treatment hyperpigmentation as a reported consideration in darker skin tones, and notes that reduced visibility of erythema in some skin of color patients may lead to underreporting of side effects.
What it does not support
Does not report data on skin cancer risk or long-term safety monitoring, and does not report outcomes for Fitzpatrick I-II skin. Its pooled response rate should not be read as a prediction for every skin tone or population.
- Precision Clinical Medicine (Ran D, Cai M, Zhang X)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: An academic review of the genetics literature. No product is named and no manufacturer is involved in it.
What this source supports
It supports that HLA-C*06:02, the PSORS1 locus, is confirmed to play a role in psoriasis and is linked to disease severity, earlier onset and familial inheritance. It supports that more than 80 psoriasis susceptibility genes have been identified through linkage analysis and genome-wide association studies. It supports that a large twin study found a higher proband-wise concordance in identical (monozygotic) twins than in fraternal (dizygotic) twins, 0.33 against 0.17. It supports that heritability in first-degree relatives was estimated at 67 per cent and in second-degree relatives at 47 per cent in the population studied. It supports that psoriasis is a complex disease produced by multiple genes interacting with immune and environmental factors. A genetic predisposition alone does not determine who develops it.
What it does not support
It is a review, not a test and not a prediction. It gives no risk figure for one named family. It does not support a genetic test that tells a parent whether a child will develop psoriasis. Its twin and heritability figures come from a Chinese study population and may not carry across every population. It sets no screening schedule, names no treatment, and does not diagnose anybody.
- Scientific Reports (Anam K, et al.)Systematic review · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The review pools published blood measurements and has no product to sell; no maker of a supplement is named as a sponsor in the record read here.
What this source supports
Supports that across 41 studies, 3,353 people with vitiligo and 10,638 people without it, average serum zinc and average serum copper were lower in the vitiligo group and average serum selenium was higher. The review reports very high disagreement between the pooled studies, at 95 per cent for zinc and copper and 97 per cent for selenium on its heterogeneity measure. Its stated conclusion is an association.
What it does not support
Every pooled study measured blood levels rather than treatment, so nothing in it tests whether taking zinc, copper or selenium changes vitiligo. A group average does not establish one person’s level, a deficiency, or a reason to supplement. It sets no amount, does not establish which came first, and does not say what should be tested.
- Scientific Reports (Zaky MS, Elgamal EA, Mohamed DH, Abd Al Maksoud AA, Elsaie ML)Observational study · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Government research-funding acknowledgment only (Egypt STDF/EKB); the authors state no competing interests.
What this source supports
Supports that in a study of 200 people with psoriasis, 16% had poor sleep quality overall. That rose to 50% among people with severe psoriasis and 25% with moderate psoriasis, against 11.8% with mild psoriasis. Supports that people with worse itching had much worse sleep on every measure checked. Supports that higher disease-severity scores lined up with worse sleep quality, shorter sleep, and more sleep disturbance. Both links were strong enough that chance alone is an unlikely explanation.
What it does not support
A single-hospital study in Egypt. It had no comparison group and mostly mild-to-moderate cases. Sleep was measured with a questionnaire, not a sleep lab. It shows a pattern across a group, not that itching causes poor sleep. It does not predict any one person’s sleep.
- The Lancet (Warren RB, et al.)Randomized trial · Clinical research, tier 2Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of subcutaneous (injected) methotrexate in 120 methotrexate-naive adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. It ran at 16 sites in Germany, France, the Netherlands, and the UK, with 91 participants on methotrexate and 29 on placebo. Supports a PASI75 response in 37 of 91 (41%) methotrexate participants versus 3 of 29 (10%) placebo participants at week 16. Supports that subcutaneous methotrexate was generally well tolerated over the full 52-week treatment period, with no deaths, serious infections, malignancies, or major adverse cardiovascular events. Supports serious adverse events in 3% of methotrexate participants.
What it does not support
This trial studied the injected form, not the oral tablet form, and is one study population, not a guarantee of a given response for an individual reader. Does not report outcomes for methotrexate combined with another treatment.
- Advances in Therapy (Passeron T, et al.)Observational study · Supporting research, tier 3Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Incyte sponsored the underlying study; several authors were Incyte employees or shareholders and other authors disclosed company relationships.
What this source supports
Supports a descriptive post hoc analysis of 103 extension-evaluable adults who received povorcitinib throughout the phase 2 study, including subgroup reporting and week-52 VASI50 response proportions ranging from 25.8% for feet to 57.3% for head and neck outside the face.
What it does not support
The small pooled extension analysis was post hoc, descriptive and lacked a placebo comparator at week 52. It does not establish a reliable individual body-site prediction, phase 3 subgroup results, comparative superiority, approval, long-term safety or a personal treatment plan.
- BMJ Open (Teasdale E, Muller I, Abdullah Sani A, Thomas KS, Stuart B, Santer M)Observational study · Supporting research, tier 3Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: It is peer-reviewed academic research. The paper states that it received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors, and declares no competing interests. Nobody involved sells a vitiligo product.
What this source supports
Supports that people with vitiligo report running into product selling when they search for information, in their own written words. 161 members of the UK Vitiligo Society answered free-text questions in 2016. One wrote of “a lot of commercially orientated websites promoting a variety of herbal cures etc but limited proper evidence based medical guidance”. Another wrote that “some websites eventually lead into selling some sort of product which is the new ‘best treatment’” and that “because you are motivated to find some sort of treatment you end up almost believing the hype that they sell”. The authors report concern about the commercial interests of websites and about being able to judge the evidence behind products and procedures.
What it does not support
It is a qualitative study of what people said, not a measurement of how common anything is. Its participants were self-selected members of one UK patient organisation, so it does not describe vitiligo generally or any other country. It evaluates no named product and no seller, judges no company’s intent, and establishes nothing about whether any product works.
- British Journal of Dermatology (Mosher DB, Parrish JA, Fitzpatrick TB)Observational study · Supporting research, tier 3Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports only the reported outcomes, complications, and satisfaction observations in a retrospective series of 18 people using monobenzyl ether of hydroquinone for final depigmentation.
What it does not support
The very small uncontrolled series cannot establish a predictable success rate, body-site response, long-term safety, comparison with other paths, or an individual outcome.
- Clinical and Experimental Dermatology (Patel DC, 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 that this uncontrolled single-center evaluation did not find clear evidence of benefit for the studied pseudocatalase-and-light approach and reported skin reactions.
What it does not support
Funding independence was not established in this review, and the design cannot establish comparative efficacy, evaluate current marketed products or authorize unsupervised use.
- Clinical and Experimental Dermatology 1994;19(3):210-216 (Finlay AY, Khan GK)Observational study · Supporting research, tier 3Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: This 1994 paper is the first description of the Dermatology Life Quality Index. It is not open access, so any funding or competing-interest statement could not be read.
What this source supports
Supports that the Dermatology Life Quality Index was first described here. Supports that it is a ten-question form a person fills in themselves. Supports that every question asks about the last seven days. Supports that it was designed to be quick, and to be used in a routine clinic. Supports that the questions cover symptoms and feelings, daily activities, leisure, work or study, personal relationships, and the trouble of the treatment itself. Supports that each answer scores 0 to 3, and that the total runs from 0 to 30. Supports that a higher total means a heavier effect on life.
What it does not support
Is a first validation of a questionnaire, not a study of psoriasis treatment. Does not set a score at which a person qualifies for any treatment. Does not say which health plans ask for the score. A form about one week does not capture a better or worse week. Does not diagnose a reader or predict what one person will score.
- ClinicalTrials.gov, U.S. National Library of MedicineTrial registry · Supporting research, tier 3Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: ClinicalTrials.gov hosts the record, while Incyte sponsors the study and supplies the registered dosing-arm information.
What this source supports
Supports the phase 2 dose-ranging trial's four randomized arms: povorcitinib 15 mg once daily escalated to 75 mg, 45 mg once daily, 75 mg once daily, and placebo crossing to 75 mg once daily at week 24. Also supports oral once-daily administration, the 24-week placebo-controlled period, and the 28-week extension to a 52-week total treatment period.
What it does not support
Registration is not peer review, a regulatory decision, a published benefit-risk conclusion, an authorized dose, or a personal treatment plan.
- ClinicalTrials.gov, U.S. National Library of MedicineTrial registry · Supporting research, tier 3Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: ClinicalTrials.gov hosts the record, while Pfizer sponsors the study and supplies the registered information.
What this source supports
Supports the adult randomized phase 3 design, active and stable nonsegmental-vitiligo population, current enrollment record, study status, registered facial and total-body outcomes, and absence of posted result tables when reviewed.
What it does not support
Registration is not peer review, a regulatory decision, proof of benefit, an explanation for differing public enrollment counts or a personal treatment plan.
- ClinicalTrials.gov, U.S. National Library of MedicineTrial registry · Supporting research, tier 3Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: ClinicalTrials.gov hosts the record, while AbbVie sponsors the studies and supplies the registered information.
What this source supports
Supports the replicate randomized phase 3 protocol, enrolled population, study status, and the registered exploratory narrowband-UVB substudy. The registry did not post phase 3 result tables or a combination result when reviewed.
What it does not support
Registration is not peer review, regulatory approval, proof that adding phototherapy helps, or a personal treatment plan.
- ClinicalTrials.gov, U.S. National Library of MedicineTrial registry · Supporting research, tier 3Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: ClinicalTrials.gov hosts the record, while Incyte sponsors the study and supplies the registered information.
What this source supports
Supports the adult randomized phase 3 design, nonsegmental-vitiligo eligibility, 467-person enrollment record, study status, registered facial outcome and absence of posted result tables when reviewed.
What it does not support
Registration is not peer review, a regulatory decision, a published benefit-risk conclusion or a personal treatment plan.
- ClinicalTrials.gov, U.S. National Library of MedicineTrial registry · Supporting research, tier 3Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: ClinicalTrials.gov hosts the record, while Incyte sponsors the study and supplies the registered information.
What this source supports
Supports the adult randomized phase 3 design, nonsegmental-vitiligo eligibility, 450-person enrollment record, study status, registered facial outcome and absence of posted result tables when reviewed.
What it does not support
Registration is not peer review, a regulatory decision, a published benefit-risk conclusion or a personal treatment plan.
- ClinicalTrials.gov, U.S. National Library of MedicineTrial registry · Supporting research, tier 3Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: ClinicalTrials.gov and the National Library of Medicine host the record. The study sponsor supplies the registered study information, so the host name does not make the trial independent.
What this source supports
Supports a sponsor-run phase 3 study of oral ritlecitinib in people age 12 or older with active or stable nonsegmental vitiligo.
What it does not support
The registry reports 607 participants, registered facial and total-body outcomes, completed status, and no posted results. A completed trial is not an FDA vitiligo approval, a published benefit-risk conclusion, a recommendation, or evidence that the medicine is available for vitiligo outside research or off-label care.
- ClinicalTrials.gov, U.S. National Library of MedicineTrial registry · Supporting research, tier 3Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Incyte Corporation sponsored the trial and supplies the posted result tables. ClinicalTrials.gov and the National Library of Medicine host the record; hosting it does not make the trial independent.
What this source supports
Supports the whole-body Week 24 result that the current US label does not tabulate: 20.6% of TRuE-V1 participants against 5.1% on vehicle cream reached at least 50% improvement in the total body Vitiligo Area Scoring Index. At the three-quarter bar the figures are 4.1% against 1.8%. The table counts all 330 randomized participants. Its facial figures are 29.8% against 7.4%, which is what the trials own report in the New England Journal of Medicine prints.
What it does not support
It is the sponsor posting its own result tables, not a peer-reviewed analysis or an independent audit. Missing scores were filled in by statistical imputation rather than measured. Everyone enrolled had vitiligo covering 10% or less of their body surface, so a whole-body percentage here describes that group and not a person with widespread patches, and it predicts no individual result.
- ClinicalTrials.gov, U.S. National Library of MedicineTrial registry · Supporting research, tier 3Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Incyte Corporation sponsored the trial and supplies the posted result tables. ClinicalTrials.gov and the National Library of Medicine host the record; hosting it does not make the trial independent.
What this source supports
Supports the whole-body Week 24 result that the current US label does not tabulate: 23.9% of TRuE-V2 participants against 6.8% on vehicle cream reached at least 50% improvement in the total body Vitiligo Area Scoring Index. At the three-quarter bar the figures are 8.0% against 1.8%. It also records why this trial reads differently in different documents. Every table here leaves out one study site for serious protocol noncompliance, so 222 and 109 people are counted of the 344 enrolled. On that population the facial figures are 30.9% against 11.4%, which are the New England Journal of Medicine numbers rather than the label ones.
What it does not support
It is the sponsor posting its own result tables, not a peer-reviewed analysis or an independent audit. Missing scores were filled in by statistical imputation rather than measured. Everyone enrolled had vitiligo covering 10% or less of their body surface, so a whole-body percentage here describes that group and not a person with widespread patches, and it predicts no individual result.
- Dermatologica 1978;157(4):238-244 (Fredriksson T, Pettersson U)Observational study · Supporting research, tier 3Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: This 1978 paper is the first description of the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. It is not open access. Any funding or competing-interest statement could not be read, and the study itself tested a drug.
What this source supports
Supports that the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index was first described here. Supports that the index scores three features of the skin: redness, thickness and scale. Supports that each of the three is graded on a scale of 0 to 4. Supports that the amount of skin involved is graded separately, on a scale of 0 to 6. Supports that the body is divided into four regions: the head, the upper limbs, the trunk and the lower limbs. Supports that each region carries its own weight, because each holds a different share of the skin. Supports that the four region scores are added, and that the total runs from 0 to 72.
What it does not support
Does not report how closely two clinicians scoring the same skin agree. Does not say how the redness grade behaves on brown or black skin. Does not set a score at which a person qualifies for any treatment. Does not say which health plans ask for the score. Does not diagnose a reader or predict what one person will score.
- Experimental Dermatology (Peeva E, et al.)Observational study · Supporting research, tier 3Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Pfizer sponsored the underlying study; several authors were Pfizer employees and other authors disclosed company relationships.
What this source supports
Supports a sponsor-linked analysis of the phase 2 population by Fitzpatrick skin type, including 247 people in types I–III and 117 in types IV–VI, group-level facial-score changes through the extension, and similar reported treatment-emergent-event patterns across those groups.
What it does not support
The analysis does not establish equal response for every skin tone, race or ethnicity, explain an individual result, supply phase 3 subgroup evidence, establish a vitiligo approval or replace body-site-specific evidence.
- Healio DermatologyGuideline · Supporting research, tier 3Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that an international multidisciplinary consensus effort set new criteria for vitiligo severity, going beyond body-surface area. The methodology combined a literature review, a qualitative study of 30 participants, two Delphi survey rounds (85 then 81 participants), and a 44-attendee final consensus meeting. Supports that the consensus named "career or academic impact from the disease" as one minor criterion. That criterion can escalate a moderate case toward severe, alongside factors such as darker skin tone, younger age, and hair involvement.
What it does not support
This is medical-news secondary reporting on a consensus statement, not the primary peer-reviewed publication. The primary publication was not directly reviewed for this claim. It does not itself diagnose severity or recommend a treatment. It does not establish that any one patient’s work situation changes their clinical severity grade. Cross-verified via independent search summaries of Hospital Healthcare Europe and Dermatology Advisor coverage of the same consensus effort. Both converged on the same methodology and criteria.
- JAMA Dermatology (Bibeau K, et al.)Observational study · Supporting research, tier 3Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Several authors worked for the study sponsor. The page reports the paper’s descriptive survey results and does not treat them as proof of cause.
What this source supports
Supports the reported quality-of-life scores and rates of diagnosed mental-health conditions among the surveyed darker- and fairer-skin groups.
What it does not support
The online survey cannot predict one person’s experience, prove that skin tone caused the difference, or rank whose distress matters more.
- 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.
- Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine (Shakhbazova A, et al.)Systematic review · Supporting research, tier 3Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that nutrition, supplement and herbal studies are heterogeneous, often adjunctive and insufficient to establish a universal diet or reliable stand-alone vitiligo treatment.
What it does not support
Commercial independence was not established in this review; it does not establish product equivalence, quality, safety, an individual deficiency or a recommendation to use a reviewed ingredient.
- Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (Jalalmanesh S, et al.)Randomized trial · Supporting research, tier 3Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The published record read here does not state the funding source or the authors’ interests, so independence is recorded as not established rather than assumed.
What this source supports
Supports that 30 people with vitiligo entered a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot of a turmeric cream put on the skin, and that 24 of them finished it. Each person used the turmeric cream on one side of the body and a placebo cream on the other, over four months. The authors report that patch size fell and appearance improved more on the turmeric side than on the placebo side, and they describe the setting as mild to moderate vitiligo.
What it does not support
It is a pilot of 30 people and the authors call it one. It tested a cream put on the skin, not turmeric or curcumin taken by mouth and not a kitchen spice. It does not identify what any product on sale contains, establish a benefit beyond mild to moderate patches, support replacing an existing treatment, or predict a result for one person.
- Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (Zhao J, et al.)Systematic review · Supporting research, tier 3Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that published acupuncture reviews report possible benefit but have critical methodological and reporting weaknesses and mixed evidence certainty.
What it does not support
It does not establish acupuncture as a standard repigmentation treatment, validate every related procedure or support an individual recommendation.
- Journal of Investigative Dermatology (Goldstein NB, et al.)Observational study · Supporting research, tier 3Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports pigment-cell precursor populations in hair follicles and their observed proliferation, migration, and differentiation in studied NB-UVB-treated human vitiligo skin.
What it does not support
It cannot predict whether a patch will repigment, how much color will return, or how long change will take for one person.
- Journal of Investigative Dermatology (Pandya AG, 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 exploratory, supervised combination evidence from a study that enrolled 55 people with nonsegmental vitiligo; 35 early nonresponders added narrowband ultraviolet B and 26 were evaluable later.
What it does not support
The study includes Incyte authors and lacks a randomized combination comparator. It does not establish combination superiority, a general sequence, independent comparative benefit or a self-directed plan.
- Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease (du Plessis J, Scurry J, Toon CW, et al.)Observational study · Supporting research, tier 3Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest, and the study reports on hospital pathology records rather than on a product.
What this source supports
Supports a review of vulvar biopsies showing vitiligo, defined by absent or rare pigment cells on staining, in 36 women with a median age of 56. It supports that 23 of them, or 64 per cent, also had lichen sclerosus or lichenoid dermatitis diagnosed at the same time. It supports that 7, or 19 per cent, showed otherwise normal skin, 5 had lichen simplex chronicus and 1 had spongiotic dermatitis. It supports that itch was more frequent in the group with a second lichenoid condition, at 21 of 23 against 6 of 13. It supports that 3 of the 7 women with vitiligo alone on the slide still reported pain, itch, or both. It supports the authors’ conclusion that women with symptoms and biopsy-proven vulvar vitiligo usually have an additional skin condition, and that separating overlapping conditions is complicated even on the slide.
What it does not support
It is a retrospective series of 36 people identified from one pathology database, not a population. Everyone in it had skin that a clinician chose to biopsy, so it cannot say how common either condition is, how often they overlap in people who are never biopsied, or how often vitiligo there itches. It is vulvar skin only and reports nothing about penile or other genital skin, and its median age is 56. It sets no treatment, names no product, and cannot tell a reader which condition they have.
- Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (Yamaguchi Y, et al.)Observational study · Supporting research, tier 3Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Pfizer sponsored the study; several authors were Pfizer employees and the comparison arose within a sponsor-run extension.
What this source supports
Supports an exploratory extension in which 43 people received add-on narrowband UVB and 187 received ritlecitinib alone, with differing results across missing-data analyses.
What it does not support
The small, non-randomized add-on comparison used a stopping rule only in the combination group. It does not establish combination superiority, a routine sequence, a self-directed light plan or individual suitability.
- Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine (Otman SGH, et al.)Observational study · Supporting research, tier 3Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that ultraviolet transmission differed across sampled eyewear types and that fit, documented protection, and product-specific verification matter.
What it does not support
It tested selected products against previously published acceptability limits and surveyed United Kingdom phototherapy units; it does not certify any product currently sold, make ordinary eyewear interchangeable with approved phototherapy protection, or authorize an eyelid-treatment exception.
- AbbVieManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: AbbVie manufactures Rinvoq, sponsored the studies, analyzed the results, and issued the release before full peer-reviewed publication.
What this source supports
Supports only AbbVie’s reported Viti-Up enrollment, facial and total-body response percentages, selected adverse-event summary, and sponsor interpretation.
What it does not support
The release is not peer-reviewed trial publication, direct comparison with another treatment, body-site-specific proof for hands or feet, long-term safety evidence, or an individual prediction.
- AbbVieManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: AbbVie manufactures Rinvoq and operates this cost and savings-program page. It is a first-party statement about list price and its own support programs, not independent pricing evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the stated wholesale acquisition cost figure for a 30-day Rinvoq supply as of January 6, 2026. Also supports the commercial-insurance eligibility limits of the RINVOQ Complete Savings Card, the myAbbVie Assist patient-assistance program for uninsured or underinsured patients who meet AbbVie’s criteria, and AbbVie’s own example Medicaid and Medicare Part D cost ranges.
What it does not support
Does not establish what any one reader would actually pay, insurance-specific cost beyond the ranges AbbVie states, eligibility for a specific patient, or a price guaranteed to remain unchanged. It is not specific to the 15 mg vitiligo dose.
- AbbVie via PR NewswireManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: AbbVie manufactures Rinvoq and issued this announcement. It is a current first-party statement about the regulatory status, not independent clinical evidence.
What this source supports
Supports AbbVie’s dated statement that the European Commission approved Rinvoq for a defined nonsegmental-vitiligo population and that the US indication remained under FDA review on July 29, 2026. Also states the approved dose - 15 mg upadacitinib by mouth once daily - and the age/weight-qualified adolescent population (age 12 and older, at least 30 kg).
What it does not support
It does not establish a later FDA decision, UK approval, independent comparative benefit, individual suitability, access or a treatment plan.
- AmgenManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Amgen manufactures Otezla and operates this patient-access page. It is a first-party statement about its own copay program, not independent pricing evidence.
What this source supports
Supports that eligible patients with commercial insurance may pay as little as $0 a month out of pocket through the Otezla Co-Pay Program. Supports that the program is available regardless of income level, and that it excludes patients on Medicare, Medicaid, or another government-funded plan. Supports that the Amgen Safety Net Foundation, a nonprofit patient-assistance program, can help qualifying uninsured or underinsured patients access Otezla at no cost.
What it does not support
A manufacturer copay-card page does not state a specific annual dollar maximum, does not guarantee any one reader would qualify, and does not establish what a reader would actually pay.
- Arcutis BiotherapeuticsManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The medicine manufacturer publishes its own patient-assistance program terms and has a direct commercial interest in product access.
What this source supports
Supports that Arcutis Cares provides Arcutis medicine, including ZORYVE, at no cost to patients who are uninsured or government-insured (Medicare or Medicaid) and cannot afford their copay. Eligibility also requires living in and being treated in the United States. Supports the income limit, based on 300% of the Federal Poverty Level: about $47,880 or less for one person, scaling up by household size. Supports that commercially insured patients are not eligible for this program and are directed to the separate ZORYVE Direct savings card instead.
What it does not support
Does not state a fixed coverage duration beyond "the benefit year" of enrollment, and does not guarantee approval for a given applicant.
- Arcutis BiotherapeuticsManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The medicine manufacturer publishes its own savings-card terms and has a direct commercial interest in product access.
What this source supports
Supports that patients with commercial drug insurance may pay as little as $0 per prescription fill, up to a program savings limit. Supports that the offer is explicitly not valid for patients without commercial drug insurance, and not valid for anyone enrolled in a government healthcare program (Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, or other federal/state programs). Supports that the offer is subject to change or discontinuation without notice and is limited to the United States and Puerto Rico.
What it does not support
Does not state a retail list price or what an uninsured or government-insured patient would pay without the separate patient-assistance program.
- AVITA MedicalManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: AVITA manufactures RECELL and issued the announcement. It is first-party scope information, not independent evidence or a regulator-hosted certificate.
What this source supports
Supports the manufacturer’s statement that RECELL GO obtained an EU-MDR CE mark for described acute-wound uses. It does not state a current vitiligo scope for that model.
What it does not support
A company announcement is not the model-specific certificate or instructions for use and cannot establish a current EU or UK vitiligo indication.
- BenevolentAIManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: This is the drug's own developer announcing its own candidate's trial results, not an independent or peer-reviewed report.
What this source supports
Supports that BenevolentAI calls BEN-2293 a topical, AI-assisted candidate. Supports the company's own report: a 91-patient study found it safe and well tolerated. Supports that the study did not show a clear benefit on itch or skin inflammation across the whole group. Supports that a later look at patients with more skin involved hinted at a possible benefit worth further study. Studied for mild-to-moderate eczema, not psoriasis.
What it does not support
It is the sponsor's own announcement, not an outside or peer-reviewed check. A safety pass is not a benefit finding. The study did not meet its benefit goal in the whole group. A later, smaller finding is not a confirmed one. No record found here studies BEN-2293 in psoriasis.
- Bristol Myers SquibbManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Bristol Myers Squibb manufactures Sotyktu and operates this patient-access page and its own patient assistance foundation. These are first-party statements about its own programs, not independent pricing evidence.
What this source supports
Supports that eligible patients with commercial insurance may pay as little as $0 per 30-day supply through the SOTYKTU 360 Support Co-Pay Assistance Program. Supports that this benefit is subject to monthly, annual, or per-claim maximums that vary by patient. Supports that the program explicitly excludes patients with prescription coverage through a state or federal healthcare program, including Medicare, Medicaid, Medigap, CHAMPUS, TRICARE, VA, or DOD programs. Supports that cash-paying patients without insurance are not eligible for this specific program. Supports that Bristol Myers Squibb separately operates the independent Bristol Myers Squibb Patient Assistance Foundation. Supports that this foundation can provide free medication to qualifying uninsured patients experiencing financial hardship.
What it does not support
A manufacturer copay-card page does not state a specific dollar maximum, does not guarantee any one reader would qualify for either program, and does not establish what a reader would actually pay.
- Dermato-Endocrinology (Finamor DC, et al.)Observational study · Manufacturer, tier 4Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The paper has no control group, and a later case series records that the approach it reports now carries the surname of its senior author, so independence from an interest in the result is not established.
What this source supports
Supports that 16 people with vitiligo and 9 with psoriasis took a high daily dose of vitamin D for six months in an open-label study with no control group and no blinding. The authors report that 14 of the 16 people with vitiligo had between 25 and 75 per cent repigmentation. Blood levels of vitamin D rose steeply in both groups, and the authors state that no clinical or laboratory sign of toxicity was seen in any of the 25 participants.
What it does not support
With no control group and no blinding, it cannot show what caused the change it reports, and the authors say they avoided a placebo group deliberately. The authors also state that their design precludes establishing an optimal daily amount. It is 25 people over six months, so it establishes neither efficacy nor long-term safety, and I do not publish the amount used, the diet that accompanied it, or the tests that were run.
- electronic Medicines Compendium / AbbVie LtdManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The electronic Medicines Compendium hosts company-supplied UK product information. It is useful for current listed indications but is not independent clinical evidence.
What this source supports
Supports that the UK product information reviewed did not list a vitiligo indication.
What it does not support
It does not prove that no later MHRA decision exists or establish status outside the UK.
- electronic Medicines Compendium / Pfizer LimitedManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The electronic Medicines Compendium hosts company-supplied UK product information. It is useful for current listed indications but is not independent clinical evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the severe-alopecia indication in the current Great Britain product information reviewed by SteadySkin. It does not list vitiligo.
What it does not support
Company-supplied product information does not prove that no later MHRA decision exists, establish status outside Great Britain or provide independent vitiligo evidence.
- IncyteManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Incyte makes Opzelura and runs this patient-access page. It is a first-party statement about its own programs, not independent price or rule data.
What this source supports
Supports the copay card terms as stated. A patient with private insurance may pay as little as $0 per tube. If their plan does not cover it, they may pay $35 per prescription. A cap applies per tube and per year, along with a 25-day use limit. The card excludes Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and VA-covered patients, plus any state drug-help program. It also excludes cash-paying patients. Also supports the IncyteCARES program terms. It is open to uninsured patients, or those with Medicare Part D who cannot afford their copay. Household income must be at or below 400% of the federal poverty level, $62,600 for one person as stated on the page. Uninsured enrollment lasts 12 months, then a patient must ask again. Medicare Part D patients must sign up again each year. It excludes patients on Medicaid, the Medicare Part D Low-Income Subsidy, VA, DoD, TRICARE, or a state drug-help program.
What it does not support
The page shows no post or update date. The date used here comes from the material code printed in its footer, MAT-INC-02867, 11/25, so the page may be newer or older than that code suggests. This source does not prove these dollar amounts, income limits, or rules still apply when a reader visits. It also does not say what a specific person will actually pay.
- Incyte CorporationManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Incyte develops povorcitinib, sponsored the studies, analyzed the results and issued the topline update before full peer-reviewed results were available.
What this source supports
Supports only Incyte’s report that STOP-V1 and STOP-V2 met the facial endpoint, the stated absolute response percentages, selected topline safety language and planned future vitiligo regulatory filings.
What it does not support
The update is not peer-reviewed publication, a regulator decision, proof of availability, direct comparison with another treatment, a complete safety profile or an individual prediction.
- Incyte CorporationManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Incyte operates the IncyteCARES program and lists only the medicines it chooses to cover on its own page.
What this source supports
Supports that IncyteCARES, fetched live, lists Jakafi/Jakafi XR, Monjuvi, Niktimvo, Opzelura, Pemazyre, and Zynyz as covered medicines, and that povorcitinib does not appear anywhere on the page.
What it does not support
A single-date snapshot of one manufacturer page cannot establish that no assistance program will ever exist for povorcitinib, a future commercial price, or trial-related costs.
- Incyte CorporationManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The medicine manufacturer publishes the list-cost and assistance information and has a direct commercial interest in product access.
What this source supports
Supports only the dated manufacturer list-cost and savings-program snapshot.
What it does not support
It does not establish a pharmacy price, insurance coverage, eligibility, or an individual out-of-pocket amount.
- Insilico MedicineManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: This is the drug's own developer announcing its own candidate's trial progress, not an independent or peer-reviewed report.
What this source supports
Supports that Insilico Medicine says AI helped find rentosertib's target and design its shape. Supports the company's own report: lung function rose more on the drug than on placebo at 12 weeks, in an earlier study. Supports that the company started a roughly 320-patient study on July 7, 2026, across 47 sites in China. Supports that this new study is for a lung-scarring disease, not psoriasis.
What it does not support
It is the sponsor's own announcement about its own drug. It is not an outside or peer-reviewed check of the earlier result. Starting a new study is not an approval. It is not proof the drug works or is safe. No record found here studies rentosertib in psoriasis.
- Nutrients (Amon U, Yaguboglu R, Ennis M, Holick MF, Amon J)Observational study · Manufacturer, tier 4Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The series reports on patients treated by its own authors under the protocol it is assessing, which is a report on their own practice rather than an independent check of it.
What this source supports
Supports that the high-dose vitamin D approach patients meet online is called the Coimbra protocol, and that it is named for the Brazilian group who reported the 2013 pilot. It supports that hypercalcemia and impaired kidney function are the main concerns raised against it. It reports laboratory results for 319 people with a range of autoimmune conditions, treated for up to three and a half years, with mean values inside the normal range for serum calcium, creatinine, estimated GFR, cystatin C, TSH and 24-hour urinary calcium. Its conclusion is stated as safety under appropriate supervision by experienced physicians, alongside a strict low-calcium diet and a daily fluid requirement.
What it does not support
It is a report by the treating clinicians on their own patients, not a controlled trial and not an independent audit. It measures laboratory safety, not repigmentation, and vitiligo is not analysed as its own group. Its safety statement is conditional on the supervision, diet and monitoring it describes, so it does not support anyone following the approach without them. It sets no amount for this site to publish and establishes nothing about what would happen to one person.
- Opzelura HCP / Incyte CorporationManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Incyte manufactures Opzelura and sponsors the page and featured clinician. It is a promotional source and not independent evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the manufacturer’s current expectation framing that repigmentation is gradual, varies by person and body area, and may take longer than 24 weeks, plus its dated claim that Opzelura is the only FDA-approved prescription medicine specifically for vitiligo repigmentation. The current FDA label independently controls the indication, trial endpoints, warnings and product facts.
What it does not support
It does not independently establish comparative superiority, predict an individual timeline, turn a compensated testimonial into typical experience, or establish that an injected or oral medicine could never receive a future approval.
- OrganonManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The medicine manufacturer publishes its own savings-card terms and has a direct commercial interest in product access.
What this source supports
Supports that patients with commercial drug insurance may pay as little as $0 per prescription fill, up to $35, for up to a 90-day supply. Supports that the offer is explicitly invalid for patients whose prescription claims are eligible to be reimbursed, in whole or in part, by any governmental program (Medicare, Medicaid, or similar). Supports that the offer is limited to residents of the United States, its territories, and Puerto Rico.
What it does not support
Does not state a retail list price or what an uninsured or government-insured patient would pay without the separate patient-assistance program.
- OrganonManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The medicine manufacturer publishes its own patient-assistance program terms and has a direct commercial interest in product access.
What this source supports
Supports that the program provides Organon medicine, including VTAMA, at no cost to patients who have no insurance or other coverage for a prescription medicine and cannot afford to pay for it. Supports the income limit: household income that does not exceed 250% of the Federal Poverty Level. Supports the US-residency and US-licensed-prescriber requirements, and that a single approved application can provide up to a year of product free of charge, with reapplication allowed.
What it does not support
Does not cover patients who have any insurance or government coverage for the medicine, and does not guarantee approval for a given applicant.
- PfizerManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Pfizer manufactures Litfulo and operates this patient-access page. It is a first-party statement about its own copay program, not independent pricing evidence.
What this source supports
Supports the copay-card terms as stated: eligible commercially insured patients may pay as little as $0 a month, with an annual maximum benefit between $4,000 and $15,000 across up to 13 fills a year. Also supports that the card excludes anyone enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, or Veterans Affairs care, and is not valid for cash-paying patients.
What it does not support
A manufacturer copay-card page does not establish a vitiligo-specific program, what any one reader would pay, or that terms will not change. It is scoped to Litfulo’s approved alopecia-areata indication.
- PfizerManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Pfizer manufactures Litfulo and operates this patient-access page describing its own support programs.
What this source supports
Supports that a separate Pfizer Interim Care Rx program can provide Litfulo at no cost for up to two years to certain commercially insured patients experiencing a coverage delay or denial, and that it is not available to residents of Massachusetts or Michigan.
What it does not support
Does not establish eligibility for any specific patient, a vitiligo-specific program, or program terms beyond what this page states; it is scoped to the approved alopecia-areata indication.
- PfizerManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Pfizer manufactures Litfulo, sponsored the studies and reported the topline results before full peer-reviewed results were available.
What this source supports
Supports the manufacturer-reported result that two Phase 3 studies met prespecified facial and total-body endpoints, the stated program size of 2,174 participants across 271 sites, and planned global adult regulatory filings; exact response percentages were not released.
What it does not support
It is not peer-reviewed evidence, a regulatory decision, proof of comparative superiority or an approved vitiligo indication.
- PhotheraManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: This is first-party support information from a device manufacturer.
What this source supports
Supports the manufacturer-specific route of contacting the prescribing office when a Phothera unit indicates that authorization is needed.
What it does not support
It does not authorize treatment, apply to another manufacturer, or support inventing, storing, bypassing or reproducing an authorization code.
- Phothera (distributed via Newswise)Manufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Phothera manufactures home phototherapy devices and has a direct commercial interest in payers covering them. This describes Cigna's own policy change but is not published by Cigna.
What this source supports
Supports that Cigna removed prior restrictions on home phototherapy coverage, effective July 15, 2025, for members nationwide. It names psoriasis, eczema, and vitiligo as eligible conditions. This followed a similar decision by Elevance Health/Anthem.
What it does not support
Does not state the exact documentation, prior-treatment, or geographic-barrier criteria a member must meet. It is a device manufacturer's summary of Cigna's decision, not Cigna's own published policy text, which I could not locate.
- Phothera PhototherapyManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports Phothera’s current first-party statement that it does not purchase, resell, accept, or dispose of used devices and that owners should use local device-recycling and mercury-containing-lamp routes.
What it does not support
It does not establish the law or available collection service in a reader’s jurisdiction, confirm the composition of an unverified lamp, apply to another manufacturer, or authorize a person to remove or repair hardware.
- Phothera PhototherapyManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the current first-party route to Phothera device and accessory manuals and shows that instructions are model- and controller-specific.
What it does not support
It does not establish clinical suitability, comparative benefit, the condition of an individual unit, or that one manual applies to a related or legacy model; each exact linked manual and revision still requires verification.
- Phothera PhototherapyManufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports Phothera’s current first-party description of benefit checks, prior-authorization help, delivery, insured-patient assistance, discounted cash pricing and payment options for its devices.
What it does not support
It does not advertise a consumer rental, publish complete prices or terms, guarantee eligibility or coverage, or independently establish product value.
- Solarc Systems Inc.Manufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Solarc manufactures and sells the products whose first-party storefront prices are recorded.
What this source supports
Supports only the dated public price and configuration range displayed for cited SolRx panel families.
What it does not support
It does not establish a final cart total, shipping, installation, future price, insurance payment, clinical fit, market-wide price, or independent product value.
- Solarc Systems Inc.Manufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports one page of the named SolRx E-Series manual revision, its specifications page. That page carries the models covered, the narrowband waveband, the bulb type and count, the nominal irradiance figures with their stated caution, and the per-device electrical and fuse ratings. It does not support another SolRx family, confirm that this is the newest revision for an individual unit, establish clinical suitability, or prove comparative safety or effectiveness; the owner must verify the exact current manual with Solarc.
What it does not support
The linked file is that one page, not the whole manual. It does not carry the installation, protective-equipment, maintenance or support sections that the rest of the manual holds.
- Solarc Systems Inc.Manufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Solarc manufactures and sells the products whose first-party storefront prices are recorded.
What this source supports
Supports only the dated public price and option range displayed for the cited SolRx handheld family.
What it does not support
It does not establish a final cart total, shipping, future price, insurance payment, clinical fit, market-wide price, or independent product value.
- Vitilox, the company selling the product (vitilox.com)Manufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The page is written by the company that sells the supplement. It names no author, no manufacturer and no regulator, and it cites no study behind any of the words it uses, including “scientifically formulated” and “proven”.
What this source supports
Supports what this seller says about its own capsule, and the ingredient names it prints. The page states that the product is “scientifically formulated to support Melanocyte Health and stimulate Natural Melanin production”. It states that the blend targets “the root causes of pigment loss”. It states that the product adds “a powerful, targeted blend of ingredients proven to support repigmentation, immune balance, and melanocyte protection”. It lists the contents as ginkgo biloba extract, L-tyrosine, alpha lipoic acid, zinc, copper, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E, selenium and vitamin D3. The date recorded is the revision date the server reported when the page was read.
What it does not support
It establishes nothing about what the product does. It cites no trial of the product, names no study behind “proven” or “scientifically formulated”, gives no amount of any ingredient, and reports no result in anyone. Printing the name of a substance that has been studied elsewhere is not evidence that this product was studied or that it contains what a study used. The page is changed by its owner at any time.
- Vitilox, the company selling the product (vitilox.com)Manufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The page is written by the company that sells the product. It names no author, no manufacturer and no regulator, and it cites no study, so nothing on it has been checked by anyone without a commercial interest in the sale.
What this source supports
Supports what this seller says about its own cream, in the seller’s own words. The page states that the cream “has been formulated to re-pigment the Vitiligo affected areas of your skin”. It states that “The Melanocytes are stimulated into releasing your Melanin”. It states that the cream “contains stimulants which are absorbed into the skin causing these cells to re-activate”. It states that the cream “has been described as the most effective cream available for the recovery of your natural skin tone”. It states that because the cream “only contains natural ingredients there are no known side effects. It is 100% safe.” It also supports that the page names no individual ingredient anywhere and cites no study, trial or regulator. The date recorded is the revision date the server reported when the page was read.
What it does not support
None of this is evidence for any of it. A seller describing its own product does not establish that the cream returns pigment, that melanocytes are stimulated, that any ingredient reaches or does anything, that the product is the most effective available, or that it is safe. Customer star ratings on the page are not trial results. The page is changed by its owner at any time, so it records what the seller said on the date read and nothing more.
- Zerigo Health, Inc.Manufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports Zerigo’s current first-party description of prescription, plan or employer access, maintenance, and confirmed-device-failure handling.
What it does not support
It does not call the program a conventional rental, publish a monthly price, minimum term, deposit or ownership-conversion schedule, guarantee access, or establish comparative benefit.
- Zerigo Health, Inc.Manufacturer document · Manufacturer, tier 4Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports Zerigo’s current first-party description of its United States prescription device, required mobile application, Member Guide, Care Guide support, data-enabled service model, transfer restrictions, and distinction between technical support and medical advice.
What it does not support
It does not independently establish comparative benefit, coverage, privacy quality, clinical suitability, or that the program terms will remain unchanged.
- AetnaPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The insurer publishes its own network. The directory exists to describe who the plan pays for, not who is good at treating a condition.
What this source supports
Supports checking whether a named dermatologist is in an Aetna network before booking. Network participation and the member contract, not what is written here, decide what is actually covered.
What it does not support
A directory listing is not evidence about a clinician. It does not establish relevant experience, current availability, quality of care, or that the listing is up to date, and none of these tools can be filtered by condition.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports keeping nails short to reduce lifting and buildup. Supports wearing vinyl or nitrile gloves for wet or manual work, since drying or injuring a nail can worsen nail psoriasis or trigger a flare. Supports moisturizing hands regularly, including within about three minutes of bathing. Supports leaving cuticles alone rather than cutting or pushing them, to avoid an injury that can trigger a flare (the Koebner phenomenon). Supports not biting or picking at nails. Supports not scraping buildup out from under the nail, since treatment clears it gradually and scraping raises infection risk and can loosen the nail further. Supports skipping artificial nails, since artificial nails raise the risk of the nail separating from the finger or toe, though nail polish and gentle buffing are fine. Supports that combining a treatment plan with this nail care makes improvement more likely.
What it does not support
Does not quantify how much any single habit changes the odds of improvement, and does not replace a treatment plan on its own.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports treating the psoriasis itself as the most effective way to relieve itch. Supports moisturizing instead of scratching, especially after washing. Supports warm water, and showers of about 5 minutes or baths of about 15 minutes. Supports a cool, damp washcloth on itchy skin. Supports an anti-itch product with menthol or camphor as ingredients that tend to work well.
What it does not support
Does not quantify how much itch a given step relieves. Does not say an anti-itch product replaces psoriasis treatment.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports bathing once a day, showers of about 5 minutes, and baths of about 15 minutes or less. Supports warm, not hot, water, and a gentle cleanser made for sensitive skin, not a deodorant soap or scrub. Supports washing with hands, not a loofah, buff puff, or washcloth, then rinsing well. Supports blotting skin dry while leaving it a little damp, then applying a fragrance-free moisturizer within about five minutes of finishing.
What it does not support
Does not give a byline or last-reviewed date on the page itself. Does not state how much these steps reduce flares for a given person.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that apremilast is an oral medicine for plaque psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis that works by controlling inflammation in immune cells. Supports that, unlike other strong psoriasis medicines, no medical tests are required while taking it. Supports that clinical trials found no difference in response between patients 65 and older and younger patients. Supports that by week 16, about 20% of patients were clear or almost clear, and about a third saw 75% or greater improvement. Supports that apremilast greatly reduced itch for many patients. Supports that many nail-psoriasis patients saw improvement, some a 50% reduction, by week 16, and that more than 40% of scalp-psoriasis patients were clear or almost clear by week 16. Supports common side effects including diarrhea, nausea, headache, respiratory infections, vomiting, and cold-like symptoms, and that depression and suicidal thoughts are a serious concern. Supports advising a dermatologist if pregnant, planning pregnancy, or breastfeeding.
What it does not support
Does not report a psoriasis-specific clinical-trial adverse-reaction rate table with exact percentages by reaction, and does not predict an individual reader’s dose, response, or timeline.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that stress can trigger a psoriasis flare. Supports that skin injury - a cut, scrape, sunburn, tattoo, piercing, bug bite, or shaving nick - can trigger a flare near or at that spot. Typically this appears about 10 to 14 days after the injury. Supports that an infection such as strep throat, an earache, or bronchitis can trigger a flare, reported 2 to 6 weeks later. Supports that starting a medication - including lithium, antimalarial drugs, strong corticosteroids, or some blood pressure drugs - can trigger a flare about 2 to 3 weeks after starting it. Supports that cold, dry weather (such as winter or fall) can worsen flares, and that sunburn or spending time in air conditioning can also worsen them. Supports that smoking, or spending time around secondhand smoke, is a reported trigger. Supports that drinking daily, or more than two drinks on several days a week, can make psoriasis treatment have little or no effect. Supports that triggers differ from person to person.
What it does not support
Does not cite a specific study for its trigger list or timing windows, and does not state how many patients experience each trigger. This page displays no revision date; the date recorded here matches the same AAD psoriasis disease microsite's treatment-and-diagnosis page, checked the same day. Does not establish that avoiding a listed trigger will prevent a flare for any one person.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that a skin injury can trigger a new patch of psoriasis near the injury site. Examples: a cut, scrape, sunburn, scratch, bruise, bug bite, new tattoo, or piercing. Supports that this typically shows up about 10 to 14 days after the injury, including after a shaving cut. Supports treating injuries promptly, avoiding scratching, using insect repellent, and asking a dermatologist before a tattoo or piercing.
What it does not support
Does not give a byline or last-reviewed date on the page itself. Does not say every injury causes a flare, and gives no individual risk estimate.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that on light skin, psoriasis tends to look red or pink with silvery-white scale. On Hispanic skin, it is more likely to look salmon-colored with silvery-white scale. On African American and other dark skin, it often looks violet with gray scale, and can also be dark brown and difficult to see. When psoriasis clears on medium to darkly colored skin, it may leave lighter or darker patches where the psoriasis was.
What it does not support
This page displays no separate revision date; the date recorded here is the calendar year checked. It does not diagnose a reader from a description of their own skin. It does not state that psoriasis is harder to diagnose or more often missed on darker skin.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The Academy lists its own members. Inclusion reflects membership and board certification, not an assessment by anyone outside the organization.
What this source supports
Supports searching for board-certified dermatologists by location. It is the tool the AAD patient pages point to, and it is the starting point the site has always described in words.
What it does not support
A directory listing is not evidence about a clinician. It does not establish relevant experience, current availability, quality of care, or that the listing is up to date, and none of these tools can be filtered by condition.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that quitting smoking is linked to fewer flares and less palmoplantar psoriasis. Supports that it is linked to more remissions. Supports that quitting also lowers the risk of heart, blood vessel, liver, and gum disease. Supports that it lowers the risk of an autoimmune disease like Crohn's disease. Supports the caution that a nicotine patch can make psoriasis flare, and to ask a dermatologist before using one. Supports that limiting alcohol is linked to treatment working better and lasting longer. Supports that it is linked to a lower risk of psoriatic arthritis in women. Supports that it is linked to a lower risk of fatty liver disease and liver damage from some psoriasis medications. Supports a named threshold: more than 2 drinks a day for men, or more than 1 for women. Supports that above that threshold, treatment may stop working, work less well, or lead to fewer remissions.
What it does not support
Does not give a percentage or timeline for one person. The page shows no visible byline or update date. The site copyright year, 2026, is used here.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports eight self-care steps for genital psoriasis. Use the treatment a dermatologist prescribed for the area. Tell the dermatologist if a treatment irritates the skin. Use a mild, fragrance-free cleanser. Moisturize gently with a fragrance-free moisturizer after bathing. Use quality toilet paper. Avoid getting urine or feces on the psoriasis. Wear loose-fitting underwear and clothing, since tight-fitting clothing can cause friction. Get plenty of fiber in the diet.
What it does not support
The page displays no separate revision date or byline; the date recorded here matches the same AAD psoriasis treatment section's dated overview page, checked the same day. It does not name a fabric type, does not cover clothing choices for psoriasis outside the genital area, and does not quantify how much friction a garment must cause before it worsens psoriasis. It does not replace a dermatologist-prescribed treatment.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that psoriasis is not contagious. States that, unlike a cold or the flu, you cannot catch psoriasis from someone. Supports that you cannot get it from swimming in a pool with someone who has psoriasis, and that touching someone who has psoriasis does not transmit it.
What it does not support
This page displays no separate revision date; the date recorded here is the calendar year checked. It does not address any other skin condition someone might also have, and it does not diagnose a reader.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that tazarotene, a topical retinoid (synthetic vitamin A), slows rapidly growing skin cells, reduces thick psoriasis, decreases scale, and lessens redness and swelling. Often prescribed alongside a topical corticosteroid, which reduces skin irritation and produces longer-lasting results and a longer remission than tazarotene alone. Applied once daily as a thin layer. A few patients see complete clearing; most see about a 50% reduction, with remission lasting up to three months. Common side effects are irritation (redness, peeling, dryness, itching, burning) and increased sun sensitivity. Must not be used during pregnancy because it can cause birth defects. On nail psoriasis, can reduce nail thickness, treat crumbling nails, and help restore normal nail growth.
What it does not support
The page does not display its own separate revision date; the date recorded here matches the same AAD psoriasis treatment section’s dated overview page checked the same day. It does not name an exact percentage-of-patients figure beyond "most," quantify how often a side effect occurs, or state a fixed number of weeks before a check-in.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that a biologic specifically targets, or quiets, the part of the immune system that is overactive because of psoriasis. Supports the twelve named FDA-approved biologics (Cimzia/certolizumab pegol, Cosentyx/secukinumab, Enbrel/etanercept, Humira/adalimumab, Ilumya/tildrakizumab, Remicade/infliximab, Siliq/brodalumab, Simponi/golimumab, Skyrizi/risankizumab, Stelara/ustekinumab, Taltz/ixekizumab, Tremfya/guselkumab). Supports that dosing is given as a shot or an infusion, with dosing frequency ranging from twice a week to once every three months. Supports that infliximab specifically requires an in-office or infusion-center IV infusion rather than a self-administered shot. Supports that biologics can stop psoriatic-arthritis joint pain, stiffness, and swelling and prevent it from worsening. Supports the common side effects of upper respiratory tract infection, injection-site skin reaction, flu-like symptoms, urinary tract infection, and headache. Supports that biologics raise infection risk, particularly for people with diabetes, tobacco use, an infection history, or advanced age. Supports that blood tests and tuberculosis testing are typically required before starting, with some patients needing additional tests. Supports that four biologics are FDA-approved for children with moderate-to-severe psoriasis from around age four to six and up, depending on the drug.
What it does not support
Does not report PASI or other trial-response data, a boxed-warning quote for any specific drug, an exact screening protocol, or cost/pricing information. Does not predict an individual reader’s response or risk.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that topical corticosteroids reduce redness, swelling, scaling and itch, and slow skin-cell growth. They come in strengths from very mild to extremely strong and are typically applied twice daily. Strong products on thin skin such as the face carry skin-thinning, spider-vein and stretch-mark risk. Most people see results with short twice-daily use, and no improvement after four to six weeks is a signal to return to the prescriber.
What it does not support
The page does not display its own separate revision date; the date recorded here matches the same AAD psoriasis treatment section’s dated overview page checked the same day. It does not name potency classes by number, give a percentage of people who improve, or set a maximum course length.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that cyclosporine is an immunosuppressant originally developed to prevent organ rejection in transplant recipients, and that its psoriasis benefit was found by accident in transplant patients. Supports that it is taken daily as a pill, at the same time each day, and that a course typically runs 12 to 16 weeks. Supports that 80% to 90% of patients treated for 12 to 16 weeks had rapid improvement, and that remission after stopping lasts about 14 weeks. Supports that the most serious possible side effects are kidney damage and high blood pressure, with blood pressure checked every other week initially. Supports an increased risk of squamous cell skin cancer, higher for people who have had more than 200 PUVA treatments. Supports avoiding grapefruit, grapefruit juice, St. John’s Wort, and heavy alcohol, and consulting a dermatologist before vaccination.
What it does not support
Does not report an exact side-effect rate, does not report a psoriasis-specific clinical-trial population, and does not predict an individual reader’s dose, response, or timeline.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that methotrexate works by suppressing the overactive immune system behind psoriasis, and can effectively treat severe psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and nail psoriasis. Supports that most people taking methotrexate see less psoriasis in four to six weeks, with full clearing sometimes taking up to six months. Supports that methotrexate is usually taken once a week, never more often without a dermatologist saying so. Supports that it comes as a pill, liquid, or at-home injection, and that it should be supplemented with folic acid. Supports the common side effects of vomiting, nausea, appetite loss, mouth sores, mouth redness and swelling, and fatigue. Supports that these should be reported to a dermatologist right away.
What it does not support
Does not report an exact side-effect rate, does not report a psoriasis-specific clinical-trial population, and does not predict an individual reader’s dose, response, or timeline.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that acitretin is an oral retinoid, related to vitamin A, that the FDA has approved for severe psoriasis and that it does not suppress the immune system. Supports that it treats guttate, plaque, and pustular psoriasis on the hands and feet, extensive pustular psoriasis, erythrodermic psoriasis, and severe psoriasis in HIV-positive patients. Supports that it is taken once a day after the main meal, with fat-containing food or milk to help absorption. Supports that most patients start seeing some improvement after about two weeks, and that it can take up to twelve weeks. Supports common side effects including cracked and swollen lips, dry eyes and mouth, chapped skin, hair loss, brittle nails, unhealthy cholesterol levels, and vision problems. Supports that women who are pregnant or plan to become pregnant should not take acitretin. Supports that they must wait three years after stopping before trying to become pregnant, and should not donate blood during that same three-year window.
What it does not support
Does not report a psoriasis-specific clinical-trial adverse-reaction rate table, does not report an alcohol-interaction warning, and does not predict an individual reader’s dose, response, or timeline.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that narrowband UVB works by slowing the growth of rapidly growing skin cells and suppressing an overly active immune system. Supports that it also reduces inflammation and reduces or eliminates itch. Supports that most patients need regular sessions across several weeks, on a schedule the dermatologist sets and adjusts, and that steady improvement follows a consistent schedule. Supports that dermatologists typically evaluate response after the first several treatments. Supports the immediate side effects: a sunburn-like reaction, mild stinging or burning, dark spots more common in medium-to-dark complexions, itching, and rare blisters or burns. Supports the long-term effects: freckles, early skin aging, and increased skin cancer risk. Supports that the treatment is considered safe and effective for most people with psoriasis, including children, pregnant women, and people who are immunocompromised, without stating an exact success percentage.
What it does not support
Does not state a specific response percentage, does not quantify the rate of any individual side effect, and does not give a retail price or insurance-coverage detail.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that synthetic vitamin D (vitamin D analogues) slows rapidly growing skin cells, flattens thick psoriasis, and removes scale, and can treat nail and scalp psoriasis specifically. Most people apply it twice a day and notice improvement within about two weeks. It can be safely combined with a strong corticosteroid. The combination tends to work better than either alone and can reduce the side effects that come with using a strong steroid, which allows longer-term use. Common side effects are irritated skin, burning, itching, swelling, peeling, dryness, and redness, which typically resolve with continued use. A more serious but low-risk side effect is hypercalcemia, which can weaken bones, cause kidney stones, or affect the heart and brain.
What it does not support
The page does not display its own separate revision date; the date recorded here matches the same AAD psoriasis treatment section’s dated overview page checked the same day. It does not name a specific percentage of people who improve, quantify how often hypercalcemia occurs, or set a maximum course length.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that tacrolimus ointment and pimecrolimus cream are FDA approved to treat atopic dermatitis (eczema), not psoriasis, so dermatologists prescribe either for psoriasis off-label. Supports use on plaque psoriasis on the face and other delicate areas including the genitals, and on inverse psoriasis (armpits, under the breasts, groin, or face). Supports that most people apply either medicine twice a day, and that no improvement after six weeks is a signal to check back with a dermatologist. Supports that the FDA warns of a possible increased risk of lymphoma or skin cancer, while noting dermatologists have not observed this increased risk in day-to-day practice.
What it does not support
The page does not display its own separate revision date; the date recorded here matches the same AAD psoriasis treatment section’s dated overview page checked the same day. It does not explain the calcineurin mechanism of action, name a percentage of people who improve, or state a retail price.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that having a parent, grandparent, brother or sister with psoriasis raises a person's risk of getting it. Supports that people who have certain genes are more likely to get psoriasis. States plainly that some people who get psoriasis do not have genes known to raise the risk. Supports the immune-system account: white blood cells called T-cells are part of the immune system. In psoriasis, T-cells attack the body's own skin cells. That attack causes the body to make new skin cells much faster than usual.
What it does not support
It names no percentage of patients with a family history and no gene by name. This page displays no separate revision date; the date recorded here is the calendar year checked. It does not diagnose anybody and sets no genetic-testing recommendation.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that roflumilast (Zoryve) cream is FDA approved for patients with plaque psoriasis, applied once a day as instructed. Supports that in the studies that led to approval it worked quickly to reduce itch and clear psoriasis. Supports that a roflumilast foam version treats scalp and body psoriasis, applied once daily. Supports the patient-facing side-effect list for the cream: diarrhea, headache, and feeling sick to your stomach (nausea). Supports, for tapinarof (VTAMA) cream, that it is prescribed for adults with mild, moderate, or severe psoriasis and can be applied anywhere on the body, including the face. Supports that about 40% of patients were clear or almost clear after 12 weeks of using it, and that patients who stopped after clearing stayed clear for an average of 12 weeks. Supports that the most common side effect is a skin reaction.
What it does not support
The page does not name an exact response percentage, a specific check-in timeline, or a retail price for roflumilast. For tapinarof, the page does not name folliculitis specifically, break down its "skin reaction" side effect by exact rate, or state a retail price.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that most people who get psoriasis have it for life. Supports that this holds true for every type of psoriasis with one named exception: guttate psoriasis in children, which can resolve on its own.
What it does not support
This page displays no separate revision date; the date recorded here is the calendar year checked. It does not forecast severity, location, or treatment response for one reader, and it does not diagnose anybody.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports, per named type. Plaque: about 80% to 90% of people with psoriasis develop it. Thick raised patches with silvery-white scale. Usually on the scalp, elbows, knees, or lower back but can develop anywhere. Scratching can cause patches to thicken. Guttate: small, scaly, salmon-to-pink spots appearing suddenly on the torso, legs, arms, face, scalp, and ears. More common in children and young adults. Temporary, often clearing in weeks or months without treatment. Inverse: smooth, raw-looking red patches with little scale in the armpits, genitals, and buttock crease. Sore or painful skin. Pustular, localized: pus-filled bumps on red, swollen skin usually on the feet and hands, not infected. Can make typing or walking unbearably painful. Pustular, generalized (von Zumbusch): serious and life-threatening. A five-stage flare sequence. The person also feels very sick and may develop fever, headache, and muscle weakness. Medical care is often necessary to save the person's life. Erythrodermic: serious and life-threatening, requires immediate medical care. Skin on most of the body looks burnt. Chills, fever, looking extremely ill, muscle weakness, rapid pulse, severe itch. Most people who develop it already have another type of psoriasis. They often notice their psoriasis worsening or not improving with treatment first. Hypothermia can set in quickly. Nail: about half of people with plaque psoriasis see signs of psoriasis on their fingernails at some point. Tiny nail pits, discoloration, crumbling or rough nails, or a nail lifting away.
What it does not support
This page displays no separate revision date; the date recorded here is the calendar year checked. It does not name a separate "scalp psoriasis" type distinct from plaque, and does not give a percentage for guttate, inverse, or either pustular form. It does not say nail psoriasis is mistaken for a fungal infection, and it does not diagnose a reader.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports telling a dermatologist about a finger or toe that swells all the way along (a "sausage digit"). Also supports naming swollen, tender joints, and morning stiffness that lasts 30 to 45 minutes or longer and eases with movement. Also supports naming pitted or lifting nails, and low-back or heel pain, including swelling above the heel. Supports that for most people psoriatic arthritis develops years after psoriasis. Supports that psoriatic arthritis destroys the joints in some people, and that early treatment helps prevent this.
What it does not support
Does not give a percentage or fraction of people with psoriasis who go on to develop psoriatic arthritis. This page displays no separate revision date; the date recorded here matches the same AAD psoriatic-arthritis series’ treatment page, checked the same day. Does not diagnose psoriatic arthritis from a symptom list alone.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that hair loss sometimes follows when psoriasis develops on the scalp. Supports that hair tends to regrow once the scalp psoriasis clears. Supports gently combing and brushing away scale, avoiding picking, and applying treatment directly to the scalp. Supports keeping fingernails short and smooth, alternating medicated and gentle shampoo, using conditioner every wash, and air drying instead of blow-drying. Also supports testing hair products for irritation first, and telling a dermatologist if treatment feels too harsh. Also supports telling a dermatologist if hair loss persists, since it can have other causes.
What it does not support
Does not give a byline or last-reviewed date on the page itself. Does not give a timeframe for regrowth or say every case of hair loss is caused by the psoriasis itself.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that a topical corticosteroid is the most commonly prescribed scalp psoriasis treatment. Supports applying it directly, or as a clobetasol propionate medicated shampoo. Supports using that shampoo daily for up to four weeks, or once or twice a week for maintenance. Supports salicylic-acid scale softeners to soften thick patches so medicine reaches the skin. Supports calcipotriene before bed under a shower cap, tazarotene before bed and washed off in the morning, and coal tar for itching. Supports that in-office options include corticosteroid injections and excimer laser. Supports that stronger systemic options exist for more severe cases.
What it does not support
Does not give a byline or last-reviewed date on the page itself. Does not say how quickly any option works or guarantee results outside of following the prescribed plan.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports avoiding scratching, which can worsen psoriasis, cause bleeding, and lead to noticeable hair loss. Supports avoiding picking off scale, which can trigger a flare. Supports gentle shampooing rather than vigorous rubbing or scrubbing. Supports a salicylic-acid scale softener before removing scale, and lifting hair out of the way when applying medicine. Supports managing stress, since stress can worsen psoriasis and add to hair shedding.
What it does not support
Does not give a byline or last-reviewed date on the page itself. Does not quantify how much any single habit reduces flares or hair loss.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that a person can have more than one type of psoriasis, including one type for years before a second develops. Supports psoriasis beginning on the skin before later appearing on the nails. Supports that the type on the skin can change over time. Supports three named progressions. Some people with plaque psoriasis develop guttate psoriasis after an infection such as strep throat. Some people with severe, poorly controlled plaque psoriasis see it turn into erythrodermic psoriasis. Generalized pustular psoriasis developing on top of existing plaque psoriasis often has a trigger, such as stopping a strong medication too quickly or getting strep throat.
What it does not support
This page displays no separate revision date; the date recorded here is the calendar year checked. It does not quantify how often any progression happens, and does not say guttate psoriasis becoming plaque psoriasis is a documented direction. It does not predict a course for one reader.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports current US patient-language context that lighter patches have multiple causes, dermatologists diagnose vitiligo from history and examination, treatment is optional and several broad management paths exist.
What it does not support
The page acknowledges support from Incyte Dermatology, so it does not independently establish drug efficacy or comparative superiority.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports patient-facing context that skin which has lost its color can burn readily and that shade, clothing and labeled sunscreen use are broad protection options. It also supports that for some people a skin injury triggers new spots or patches, and it names cuts, scrapes and burns. The wound a tattoo makes can lead to the Koebner phenomenon, with new spots appearing about 10 to 14 days later. It supports that a tattoo added for pigment may not blend with natural skin color, that its color can eventually bleed, and that the vitiligo underneath can spread over time. It supports the page telling readers to avoid tanning, indoors and outdoors, because tanning increases the contrast between natural skin color and the light spots and patches. That is what it says makes vitiligo more noticeable. It supports that tanning beds, sun lamps and other indoor tanning devices are not safe alternatives to the sun. Like the sun, they can burn skin that has lost pigment and worsen vitiligo. It supports that a bad sunburn can worsen vitiligo, and that on a lighter skin tone untanned skin often makes the spots and patches less noticeable. It supports that self-tanners and skin dyes tend to last 3 to 5 days, against one day for makeup. It names dihydroxyacetone as the ingredient to look for, and says natural-looking results take practice. It supports that vitiligo increases the risk of some other diseases such as thyroid disease, and that a dermatologist can monitor for them.
What it does not support
The page acknowledges support from Incyte Dermatology, so it does not independently establish treatment efficacy. It does not establish a personalized sun plan, a product ranking or a treatment-day instruction. It gives no frequency for injury-related patches and no way to tell in advance who they happen to. It gives no measure of how much tanning changes contrast, no threshold for a bad sunburn, and no way to tell whether one person’s vitiligo will worsen. It compares no tanning device with prescribed narrowband UVB and establishes nothing about medical phototherapy. It names no product or brand for camouflage, self-tanner or skin dye.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The page carries a line thanking Incyte Dermatology for its support. Incyte sells a topical medicine for vitiligo, so the page is not independent of a commercial interest in the subject, even though the AAD states that it developed the content itself.
What this source supports
Supports that vitiligo can develop anywhere on a person’s skin, and that the patches usually appear first on the face, arms, hands or feet. It supports that some people lose color in areas called mucous membranes, which the page says includes the genitals and the inside of the mouth and nose. It supports that vitiligo can affect the hair, and that it can develop inside the ear.
What it does not support
It is a patient-education page rather than a study. It counts nothing: it does not say how many people lose color in the genital area, in whom, or when in the course of the condition. It does not diagnose a reader, and it names no treatment for any site. It is a US page, last updated 15 April 2026, and it acknowledges support from Incyte Dermatology.
- American Academy of DermatologyPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports tiny dents (nail pits) and white-yellow-brown discoloration as signs of nail psoriasis. Supports crumbling or thickened nails and nails separating from the finger or toe as signs. Supports debris and blood under the nail as signs. Supports that it can appear years after skin psoriasis or on its own. Supports a topical treatment (a strong corticosteroid, calcipotriol, or tazarotene) needing 6 or more months of daily use. Supports corticosteroid injections into or near the nail every 4 to 6 weeks. Supports systemic medication (a biologic, methotrexate, acitretin, cyclosporine, or apremilast) for severe skin-and-nail disease. Supports that laser therapy is under-researched. Supports that results are slow because nails grow slowly. Supports that clearing debris typically takes six months or longer, and that many people need to try more than one treatment or a combination.
What it does not support
Does not rank the treatment options against each other or say which one a given person should start with. Does not give success-rate numbers for any option.
- 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.
- 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 that skin camouflage means highly pigmented products that differ from ordinary makeup. They are made for long-lasting cover, are often water resistant, and are usually set with a fixing powder or spray. It supports that they should not be treated as rub-proof. Some transfer onto clothing, furnishings and bed linen can happen, and standard household cleaning usually removes it. It supports removing camouflage daily with soap and water, a soap substitute, or an oil-based cleanser, and that hard scrubbing can irritate skin. It supports that a daily removal routine lets a person look at the skin for changes. It supports that vitiligo, birthmarks and healed scars are suitable for camouflage. It supports that an undiagnosed skin condition is not, and that skin must not be infected, inflamed, blistered or broken. It supports that colours come pre-mixed and can be blended to match, and that a second layer can be applied when one is not enough. It supports that trained camouflage advisers work in NHS outpatient, dermatology and plastic surgery settings, and in the private sector. It supports that some creams and powders are available on NHS prescription, that local policy can restrict or deny access, and that a prescriber needs the brand, colour code and size agreed at a camouflage consultation. It supports that camouflage changes the colour a person sees and does not change skin texture. It supports that products sold in supermarkets, chemists and department stores may help with minor discolouration and may not work as well as camouflage products.
What it does not support
It is a UK consensus leaflet. It sets no access, referral or prescribing route anywhere else. It names no product and ranks no brand. It cannot say how long cover lasts for one person, what a colour match will look like, or what anything costs. It does not tell a reader whether a patch is vitiligo. It is not guidance for what may be on skin before a prescribed light treatment.
- CignaPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: This is Cigna's own general patient-education content, not a coverage-policy document.
What this source supports
Supports that Cigna's own general patient-education page, current as of December 4, 2024, mentions that some people may be able to do phototherapy at home.
What it does not support
Does not state any Cigna coverage rule, criterion, or cost. Is general medical information, not a policy document.
- Cigna HealthcarePatient education · Patient education, tier 5Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The insurer publishes its own network. The directory exists to describe who the plan pays for, not who is good at treating a condition.
What this source supports
Supports checking whether a named dermatologist is in a Cigna network before booking. Network participation and the member contract, not what is written here, decide what is actually covered.
What it does not support
A directory listing is not evidence about a clinician. It does not establish relevant experience, current availability, quality of care, or that the listing is up to date, and none of these tools can be filtered by condition.
- DermNetPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
It supports that cosmetic camouflage is the application of creams, liquids or powders to conceal colour or contour irregularities. It supports that the concealers used are thicker and more opaque than ordinary foundation makeup. It supports that they come in shades that can be blended or paired with a colour corrector. It supports that psoriasis is one of the skin conditions camouflage is used for, alongside vitiligo, birthmarks, rosacea, melasma and acne scarring. It supports that camouflage products used on the face and neck are made to be waterproof and need nightly removal with an oily cleanser. It supports that camouflage used elsewhere on the body can be left in place for three or four days before removal. It supports that hospitals, charities and societies run skin camouflage clinics, and that programmes such as Look Good Feel Better run workshops.
What it does not support
It is a general dermatology reference page, not written for psoriasis alone. It gives no figure for how many people with psoriasis use camouflage or how well it works for them specifically, and it names no brand. It does not address raised or actively scaling plaques by name. It sets no rule for when a plaque is too active or too broken to cover; that judgement is a dermatologist one.
- DermNetPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that narrowband UVB works for vitiligo by immune suppression and stimulation of cytokines. Supports that a course of treatment for vitiligo continues across a period of 3 to 4 months before extending further, and continues until repigmentation is complete or for 1 to 2 years. Supports that the treatment schedule this source gives for vitiligo is less frequent than the schedule it gives for other skin conditions treated with the same light.
What it does not support
It is a general dermatology reference page, not a vitiligo-specific trial or guideline, and it sets no rule for any one reader’s exact schedule or device. Its exact session-frequency figures are not reproduced in this record; SteadySkin does not publish a session count or interval for any condition. It does not state a percentage of people who repigment on this schedule, and does not report side-effect rates specific to vitiligo.
- DermNet (A/Prof Amanda Oakley, Dermatologist, Hamilton, New Zealand)Patient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that a Wood lamp examination is a diagnostic test. Skin or hair is examined while exposed to the black light a Wood lamp emits. It supports that black light is invisible to the naked eye. It sits in the ultraviolet spectrum, at a wavelength just shorter than the colour violet. It supports that the lamp glows violet in a dark environment. That is because it also emits some light in the violet part of the spectrum. It supports that a traditional Wood lamp is a low-output mercury arc covered by a Wood filter. That filter is barium silicate and 9% nickel oxide. It supports that the lamp emits wavelength 320 to 450 nm, with a peak at 365 nm. It supports that a Baltimore physicist, Robert W. Wood, invented it in 1903. It supports that modern black light sources may be specially designed BLB fluorescent lamps. They may also be mercury vapour lamps, light-emitting diodes or incandescent lamps. It supports that fluorescent black light tubes carry a dark blue filter coating. That coating filters out most visible light. It supports that fluorescence is a coloured glow. It is seen when certain substances absorb black light and emit it again at a longer wavelength in the visible spectrum. It names collagen and porphyrins as such substances. It supports that items on the skin surface can also fluoresce. It names fabric, topical medications and soap residue. It supports that skin to be examined should ideally not have been recently washed. It should ideally not have had makeup, deodorant or moisturising cream applied. Those can fluoresce and cause a false positive result. It supports that room lights are turned off and the surroundings darkened completely. It supports that the examiner waits to adapt to the dark. The lamp is then held about 10 to 30 cm away and the skin examined for a few seconds. It states that the examination is painless and safe. It supports that normal healthy skin is slightly blue under the lamp. It shows white spots where skin is thickened, yellow where it is oily and purple where it is dehydrated. It supports that clothing lint often shines bright white. It supports that a Wood lamp is used to identify the extent of pigmented or depigmented patches, and to detect fluorescence. It supports that loss of pigmentation, giving vitiligo as its example, is one of the things a Wood lamp may reveal. It reports that use as identifying affected areas in light-skinned people. It supports that hypopigmented skin has sharper borders under black light. It supports that hypopigmented skin fluoresces bright blue-white, or sometimes yellowish green, due to accumulated biopterins. It supports that the black light emitted by a Wood lamp is harmless. It supports that the lamp does not emit short-wavelength ultraviolet B radiation at 290 to 320 nm. So it does not cause sunburn or otherwise damage healthy skin. It supports that a patient with extreme photosensitivity might develop a rash on skin exposed to black light. It adds that the examination is usually very brief, and unlikely to cause problems even in very photosensitive patients. It supports that it is prudent to ask the patient to close their eyes when the face is examined. It supports that nightclubs use a Wood lamp to check fluorescent re-entry stamps. That sits in a list of non-medical uses that also names law enforcement, banks and gemology.
What it does not support
It is a dermatology reference page, not a trial and not a measurement of any one person. Its statement that black light is harmless describes a medical Wood lamp used briefly at 10 to 30 cm. It measures no venue light fitting and no evening of exposure. It sets no safe length of time under any lamp. That statement also rests on the absence of ultraviolet B, which is what causes sunburn. It is not a finding about skin where pigment has been lost. It reports the vitiligo use as identifying affected areas in light-skinned people. It grades nothing about how visible a patch is to another person. It names no lighting product sold for a venue and measures no output from one. It puts ultraviolet B at 290 to 320 nm, where the World Health Organization guide registered here puts it at 280 to 315 nm. Nothing on it identifies a rash on a reader or directs the care of one. It says nothing about a course of narrowband UVB prescribed by a clinician. Its author line is dated August 2014 and the page records a last review of 11 July 2023, so parts of it are older than the revision date registered here.
- DermNet (author Luo A, chief editor Oakley A)Patient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the naming only: that the Koebner phenomenon is also written Köbner phenomenon and is also called the isomorphic response, and that vitiligo is one of the conditions in which it is regularly described. It is cited here so that a reader has both search terms the literature is filed under.
What it does not support
It is a 2014 reference page written by a medical student under a dermatologist chief editor, and it is not evidence for how often this happens, for whom, or for what any particular injury will do. Nothing on it is used here for frequency, prediction or a course of action.
- DermNet (Coulson I, Consultant Dermatologist, East Lancashire NHS Trust; copy edited by Mitchell G)Patient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that sap and juice from some plants carry natural photosensitizing chemicals called furanocoumarins. Ultraviolet A light reacts with them in the skin and causes damage and inflammation. The reaction is a direct toxic effect, and the immune system is not involved. Its table names Queen Anne’s lace, cow parsnip, giant hogweed, parsnip and celery. The same table names lime, the gas plant, and fig from the sap rather than the fruit. About 24 to 48 hours after the light, the smeared skin turns red, swells and often blisters. The marks can be streaks, or drip shapes down an arm from lime juice. They can appear on the face and hands after eating large amounts of these foods. Eating them in quantity causes a more widespread version of the same thing. Healing leaves a pigment change that may last for several years. That pigment change may be more intense in skin of color.
What it does not support
It does not identify a rash on a reader or rule out another cause. It does not say how likely any one exposure is to cause a reaction. It names no amount of any food. It establishes nothing about vitiligo, because it never mentions the condition. It measures nothing about skin where pigment has been lost. Its treatment section is deliberately not used here. A website may not direct the care of a skin reaction.
- DermNet (Dr Bushra Alsayaydeh, Dermatologist, Amman, Jordan)Patient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports a dermatology reference account of vitiligo. It supports that loss of hair color is called leukotrichia or poliosis. It supports that this may affect the scalp, eyebrows, eyelashes and body hair in 10 to 60 per cent of patients. It supports that it does not correlate with disease activity. It supports that it could be a predictor of poorer response to therapy, because the melanocyte reservoir in hair follicles is destroyed. It supports that treatment is most successful on the face and trunk. It supports that hands, feet, and areas with white hair respond poorly. It supports that new patches are more likely to respond to medical therapy than long-standing ones. It supports that the hair follicle is the main source of pigment restoration. It supports that another potential reservoir can be at the borders of the white patches. It supports that poor prognostic indicators include longstanding disease, leukotrichia, mucosal involvement and the Koebner phenomenon. It supports that segmental vitiligo often has an irregular border with leukotrichia. It supports that leukotrichia and halo naevi are listed as predictors of transformation into the mixed variant. It supports that the Vitiligo European Task Force assesses five sites: head and neck, trunk, arms, legs, and hands and feet. It supports that its grading runs from 0 for normal pigmentation to 4 for complete hair whitening. It supports that its clinical assessment form records sex, age, duration of disease and age of onset. It supports that premature hair greying has been described but that the association is still uncertain.
What it does not support
It is a dermatology reference page, not a trial and not a measurement of any one person. Its 10 to 60 per cent figure is a span, stated on the page without a study behind that span. Its wording on response to therapy is that hair whitening could be a predictor, which is weaker than a finding. Nothing on it predicts whether one patch or one hair will repigment, how much color returns, or how long that takes. It sets no treatment, no dose, no schedule and no product. It does not diagnose white hair on a reader as vitiligo. Its author line is dated August 2022 and the page records a last review of 11 July 2023, so parts of it are older than the date registered here.
- DermNet (Lau LDW, Vu M, Scardamaglia L; reviewing dermatologist Coulson I; previous contributor Ngan V)Patient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that a medicine, or what the body breaks it down into, can sit in the skin. There it absorbs ultraviolet or visible light and sets off a reaction. There are two forms. The phototoxic one is more common, and the immune system is not involved. It appears within minutes to hours on skin the light reached. It looks like a sunburn that went too far, with redness, swelling, burning and stinging. The photoallergic one is an immune reaction. It appears 24 to 72 hours after light, as an itchy rash like eczema. It can spread beyond the skin the light reached. Its table names antibiotics, antifungals, heart and water tablets, and anti-inflammatory painkillers. The same table names oral retinoids, phenothiazines, sulfonylureas and St John’s wort. It also names fragrances, some sunscreen ingredients and some wound cleansers. It groups furocoumarins and psoralens together as what PUVA uses. It gives methoxsalen, 5-methoxypsoralen, trioxsalen and psoralens put on the skin. It supports that these properties are sometimes used on purpose in treatment. It puts this reaction at up to 8% of reported drug skin reactions.
What it does not support
It is a dermatology reference page, not a trial. It sets no frequency for any one medicine and no result for any one person. It reports that the phototoxic form is seen more often in people with lighter skin, and puts that down to melanin. It measures nothing about skin where pigment has been lost, so it supports no statement about depigmented patches. It says its own 8% figure is likely under-diagnosed and under-reported. Nothing on it is used here to identify a rash. Nothing on it is used to weigh a reaction against the reason a medicine was prescribed. Nothing on it supports stopping or changing any medicine.
- DermNet (Whittaker L, Medical Writer, New Zealand; reviewing dermatologist Coulson I; previous contributor Ngan V)Patient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that ultraviolet protection factor, UPF, is the accepted measure of how much ultraviolet passes through a fabric. It supports that UPF works the way SPF does for sunscreen, and that a higher number means more protection. It supports that UPF 50 blocks 98 per cent of ultraviolet. It supports that United States guidelines come from AATCC 183 and ASTM D6603, with a minimum of UPF 15 and no established minimum body coverage. It supports that European rules require at least UPF 40. It supports that the Australian and New Zealand standards specify body coverage as well as a minimum rating. It supports that sun protective clothing can generally be expected to last one to two years of normal wear, tear and laundry. It supports that denim, merino wool, polyester, shiny polyester blends, satin-finish silk, tightly woven fabrics and unbleached cotton give some protection. It supports that polyester crepe, bleached cotton, viscose, loose knits, undyed white denim and threadbare fabric give less. It supports that holding a fabric up to a window or lamp shows how much light passes through. It supports that darker colours give around five times the protection of white in the same material, because dye absorbs ultraviolet. It supports that loose clothing protects better than tight, because tight fabric spreads the fibres apart. It supports that many fabrics lose protection when wet, some by as much as half, and that this is especially true of cotton. It supports the coverage recommendations. They are hats that shade the face and neck, tops with long sleeves and high collars or necklines, long trousers or skirts, and enclosed shoes. It supports that a scarf can cover the neck when a hat has no brim.
What it does not support
It is a dermatology reference page, not a trial, and it tests no named garment or brand. It never mentions vitiligo and measures nothing about skin where pigment has been lost. It does not compare a specific rash guard with a specific cotton shirt; the wet-fabric statement is a property of fabrics, and I do not upgrade it into a garment comparison. It gives no price for anything and endorses no seller. A rating is measured on the fabric and not on the person wearing it.
- DermNet (Whittaker L, Medical Writer, New Zealand; reviewing dermatologist Coulson I; previous contributors Reiche L, Ngan V, Oakley A, Gordon H)Patient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that chemical sunscreens, also called organic filters, work by absorbing ultraviolet radiation. The physical or mineral filters are the inorganic metal oxides titanium dioxide and zinc oxide. It supports that these were previously thought to reflect or scatter light. It supports that studies have since shown they too protect mainly by absorbing it. It supports that both metal oxides are photostable and give broad spectrum cover, and that they are often combined with less stable organic filters. It supports that SPF ratings pertain primarily to UVB protection, because UVB is the main cause of sunburn. It explains the number as a difference in time to sunburn, an analogy that holds only while the strength of the light is constant. It supports that SPF 15 gives about 94 per cent protection against UVB. It records that the FDA has proposed titanium dioxide and zinc oxide as safe and effective. It records that PABA and trolamine salicylate have been proposed as not safe and effective. It records that more information is needed on twelve other ingredients. It supports that the term sunblock is now considered misleading, because no sunscreen blocks all ultraviolet.
What it does not support
It is a dermatology reference page, not a trial of any product. It never mentions vitiligo and measures nothing about skin where pigment has been lost. Its recommendation numbers - an SPF floor, an amount to apply, a reapplication interval and a UV index threshold - are reported in this record rather than published as instructions. Its time analogy for SPF is not used in the copy, because the FDA states directly that SPF is a ratio of the amount of light rather than of time. It does not establish that one class of filter is safer or more effective than the other.
- Global Vitiligo FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The Foundation lists centers whose clinicians have engaged with its own meetings and programs. That is a relationship with the Foundation, not an independent review of the care those centers provide.
What this source supports
Supports finding clinics whose clinicians have engaged with vitiligo-focused work, which is the closest thing to a vitiligo-specific search that exists. It is not a ranked or vetted quality score.
What it does not support
A directory listing is not evidence about a clinician. It does not establish relevant experience, current availability, quality of care, or that the listing is up to date, and none of these tools can be filtered by condition.
- GoodRxPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: GoodRx is a commercial pharmacy-price and coupon marketplace. Displayed prices can vary by prescription, pharmacy, location, and time.
What this source supports
Supports only the dated retail-cash and coupon-discount price recorded for 30 capsules of generic acitretin 25 mg: an average retail cash price of $902.27, and an average GoodRx-coupon price of $89.19.
What it does not support
It does not guarantee availability, coverage, coupon eligibility, or a personal price.
- GoodRxPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: GoodRx is a commercial pharmacy-price and coupon marketplace; displayed prices can vary by prescription, pharmacy, location, and time.
What this source supports
Supports only one input to the dated generic topical-corticosteroid cost band.
What it does not support
It does not establish another corticosteroid product’s price, coverage, coupon eligibility, or a personal price.
- GoodRxPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: GoodRx is a commercial pharmacy-price and coupon marketplace; displayed prices can vary by prescription, pharmacy, location, and time.
What this source supports
Supports only the dated discounted-cash estimate recorded for a common calcipotriene cream prescription.
What it does not support
It does not establish vitiligo benefit, insurance coverage, coupon eligibility, or a personal price.
- GoodRxPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: GoodRx is a commercial pharmacy-price and coupon marketplace; displayed prices can vary by prescription, pharmacy, location, and time.
What this source supports
Supports only one input to the dated generic topical-corticosteroid cost band.
What it does not support
It does not establish another corticosteroid product’s price, coverage, coupon eligibility, or a personal price.
- GoodRxPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: GoodRx is a commercial pharmacy-price and coupon marketplace. Displayed prices can vary by prescription, pharmacy, location, and time.
What this source supports
Supports only the dated retail-cash and coupon-discount price recorded for 30 capsules of generic cyclosporine modified 100 mg: an average retail cash price of $145.95, and an average GoodRx-coupon price of $40.82.
What it does not support
It does not guarantee availability, coverage, coupon eligibility, or a personal price.
- GoodRxPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: GoodRx is a commercial pharmacy-price and coupon marketplace. Displayed prices can vary by prescription, pharmacy, location, and time.
What this source supports
Supports only the dated retail-cash and coupon-discount price recorded for 24 tablets of generic methotrexate 2.5 mg: an average retail cash price of $97.15, and an average GoodRx-coupon price of $12.70.
What it does not support
It does not guarantee availability, coverage, coupon eligibility, or a personal price.
- GoodRxPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: GoodRx is a commercial pharmacy-price and coupon marketplace. Displayed prices can vary by prescription, pharmacy, location, and time.
What this source supports
Supports only the dated retail-cash and coupon-discount price range recorded for 60 tablets of Otezla 30 mg: an average retail cash price between $6,965.58 and $7,116.84 across two independent search snapshots.
What it does not support
Supports a converged GoodRx-coupon price of $3,353.53. Also supports that no generic apremilast is commercially available as of this snapshot. It does not guarantee availability, coverage, coupon eligibility, or a personal price.
Pimecrolimus pharmacy-price comparison - live snapshot captured August 16, 2026 (opens in a new tab)
GoodRxPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Relevant relationship disclosed- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: GoodRx is a commercial pharmacy-price and coupon marketplace; displayed prices can vary by prescription, pharmacy, location, and time.
What this source supports
Supports only the dated discounted-cash estimate recorded for a defined generic pimecrolimus prescription.
What it does not support
It does not guarantee availability, coverage, coupon eligibility, or a personal price.
- GoodRxPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: GoodRx is a commercial pharmacy-price and coupon marketplace. Displayed prices can vary by prescription, pharmacy, location, and time.
What this source supports
Supports only the dated retail-cash and coupon-discount price recorded for 30 tablets of Sotyktu 6 mg across two independent search snapshots.
What it does not support
Supports an average retail cash price of roughly $6,978, and a converged GoodRx-coupon price of roughly $6,832. Also supports that no generic deucravacitinib is commercially available as of this snapshot. It does not guarantee availability, coverage, coupon eligibility, or a personal price.
- GoodRxPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: GoodRx is a commercial pharmacy-price and coupon marketplace; displayed prices can vary by prescription, pharmacy, location, and time.
What this source supports
Supports only the dated discounted-cash estimate recorded for a defined generic tacrolimus prescription.
What it does not support
It does not guarantee availability, coverage, coupon eligibility, or a personal price.
- GoodRx / Drugs.comPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: GoodRx and Drugs.com are commercial pharmacy-price and coupon marketplaces; displayed prices can vary by prescription, pharmacy, location, and time. Direct WebFetch of both goodrx.com/litfulo and drugs.com/price-guide/litfulo returned 403; the figures here were cross-verified across two independent web searches instead.
What this source supports
Supports only the dated cash-price range recorded for a 28-capsule supply of Litfulo 50 mg without any discount applied: reported figures clustered between about $4,290 and about $4,691. It does not guarantee availability, coverage, coupon eligibility, or a personal price.
What it does not support
Does not establish a precise single price, a vitiligo-specific price, or that any reader would pay this amount.
- HealioPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports week 12-16 PASI response ranges by biologic class, summarized from the joint AAD-NPF biologics guideline and related clinical literature. Anti-TNF agents: roughly 49%-80% PASI 75. The IL-12/23 drug ustekinumab: roughly 66%-75% PASI 75. IL-17 agents: roughly 77%-91% PASI 90. IL-23 p19 agents: roughly 70%-75% PASI 90. Supports that brodalumab’s label carries a boxed warning calling for regular evaluation of suicide risk, and that bimekizumab’s current US prescribing information includes a Warning and Precaution for suicidal ideation and behavior. Supports a general statement that TNF-class registries and studies warn that these medicines could potentially increase infection risk.
What it does not support
Is a secondary clinical-guidance summary, not the primary guideline document or a primary trial report itself. Does not report a single head-to-head trial comparing classes on the same PASI threshold, a specific reader’s risk, or cost.
- Kaiser PermanentePatient education · Patient education, tier 5Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: Kaiser Permanente both insures and employs. The directory lists its own clinicians, so it describes the organization rather than assessing it.
What this source supports
Supports finding a dermatologist inside Kaiser Permanente, where members are generally seen. Region and plan decide who is actually available to a given member.
What it does not support
A directory listing is not evidence about a clinician. It does not establish relevant experience, current availability, quality of care, or that the listing is up to date, and none of these tools can be filtered by condition.
- MedlinePlus Genetics, National Library of MedicinePatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports patient-facing context on complex genetic susceptibility, family occurrence, associated autoimmune conditions, and possible pigment loss in hair and mucous membranes.
What it does not support
It does not predict inheritance or disease course for an individual, recommend genetic testing, diagnose a comorbidity, or prescribe a screening plan.
- MedlinePlus, U.S. National Library of MedicinePatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that a Wood lamp examination is a test that uses ultraviolet light to look at the skin closely. It supports that Black light test and Ultraviolet light test are alternative names for the same examination. It supports that the test is usually done in a dermatologist’s office, and that you sit in a dark room for it. It supports that the doctor holds the lamp 4 to 5 inches, or 10 to 12.5 cm, from the skin to look for colour changes. It supports that you will have no discomfort during the test. It supports that no special steps are needed beforehand, beyond a doctor’s instruction about creams or medicines on the skin. It supports that the test is done to look for bacterial infections, fungal infections and porphyria. It supports that it is also done to look for skin colouring changes, naming vitiligo and some skin cancers. It supports that not all types of bacteria and fungi show up under the light. It supports that normally the skin will not shine under the ultraviolet light. It supports that the exam may help a doctor confirm a fungal or bacterial infection, or diagnose vitiligo. It supports that it may also help a doctor learn what is causing light or dark coloured spots on skin. It supports that washing the skin before the test may cause a false-negative result. It supports that a room that is not dark enough can change the result. It supports that other materials glow under the light. It names some deodorants, make-up, soaps and sometimes lint. It supports that the risk it lists is to the eye. It says not to look directly into the ultraviolet light, as the light may harm the eye.
What it does not support
It is a consumer medical encyclopedia entry, not a trial. It describes a brief examination in a clinician’s office. It measures nothing about a light fitting in a public place, and gives no length of time that is safe under any lamp. It publishes no wavelength and never explains why skin without pigment looks different under the light. It measures nothing about how visible a patch is to another person. It does not diagnose vitiligo on its own, and says only that the exam may help a doctor do so. It lists no risk to skin at all, which is an absence of a statement rather than a finding of safety. Its content is written and reviewed by A.D.A.M. for the National Library of Medicine, and its stated review date of 14 October 2024 is what fixes its currency.
- MyVitiligoTeamPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports a solid-colored background for a comparable photo series. Black, green, or dark blue are named as ones that help skin stand out. Supports using the same artificial light in the same position each time, rather than sunlight. Supports holding the camera straight rather than tilted. Supports a distance of about 3 to 5 feet, held the same every time. Supports photographing a fixed list of body areas the same way every time. Supports using a ruler for scale and tagging each photo with its date.
What it does not support
Written and reviewed for tracking vitiligo, a different condition, not for psoriasis. Only the general camera technique - background, lighting, angle, distance, and framing - is used here; nothing about vitiligo itself is carried over. Does not establish that photo tracking changes any psoriasis outcome.
- National Center for Complementary and Integrative HealthPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that Ayurveda includes varied products and practices, that high-quality evidence is limited for many health claims and that some preparations may contain toxic metals.
What it does not support
It does not evaluate a specific vitiligo product, establish repigmentation benefit or treat an entire tradition as one intervention.
- National Center for Complementary and Integrative HealthPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports general US consumer context that supplement evidence and product content vary and that interactions, contamination and health-condition risks are possible.
What it does not support
It is not vitiligo-specific efficacy evidence, a product-quality verification service or an individual safety determination.
- National Center for Complementary and Integrative HealthPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that evidence does not establish homeopathy as effective for a specific health condition and that some labeled products can contain active ingredients with side effects or interactions.
What it does not support
It is not a vitiligo trial, an assessment of every individual product or a substitute for product-specific safety review.
- National Health Service (UK)Patient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that lichen sclerosus is a skin condition causing itchy white patches, most commonly on the genitals. It supports that the patches are usually itchy, white, smooth or crinkled, and easily damaged. It supports that they most often appear around the opening to the vagina and the anus, or on the foreskin and end of the penis. It supports that lichen sclerosus is not caused by an infection and is not contagious, and that it cannot be spread to other people through close contact, including sex. It supports that affected skin can become scarred and tight over time. It supports that lichen sclerosus increases the risk of getting cancer on the vulva, penis or anus, and that the NHS calls that risk low. It supports the NHS advice to see a GP about an itchy white patch on the genitals or skin. It supports that it is much more common in women over 50 and that people with white, brown or black skin can get it.
What it does not support
It is a patient-information page, not a study, and it reports no numbers at all. It does not establish how often lichen sclerosus and vitiligo occur together, and it cannot tell a reader which of the two they have. Its self-care and treatment sections are written for people who already have the diagnosis; I do not use them here, because a treatment step needs a diagnosis a page cannot make. It is written for UK care. Its footer records a last review of 9 December 2024 and a next review due 9 December 2027.
- National Health Service (UK)Patient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports a UK national health service account of vitiligo written for patients. It supports that the areas most commonly affected include the mouth and eyes, fingers and wrists, armpits, groin, genitals and the inside of the mouth. It supports that vitiligo is not caused by an infection and that you cannot catch it from someone else who has it. It supports that vitiligo does not cause discomfort to the skin, such as dryness, but that the patches may occasionally be itchy. It supports that a GP can diagnose vitiligo after examining the affected skin. It supports that the lack of melanin can turn the hair in an affected area white or grey.
What it does not support
It is a patient-information page, not a study, and it reports no numbers for any body site. It does not establish how common genital involvement is, and it cannot tell a reader that a patch they can see is vitiligo. It is written for UK care, so its diagnosis and referral route are UK ones. Its own footer records a last review of 22 March 2023 and a next review due 22 March 2026, so at the date it was verified here the page was five months past the date the NHS set for reviewing it.
- National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that poor sleep quality is a listed symptom of psoriasis. Also lists patches of thick, red, scaly skin that itch or burn, and dry, cracked skin that itches or bleeds. Supports that psoriasis carries risk for mental-health concerns including low self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Supports that managing common triggers, such as stress and skin injuries, can help keep symptoms under control. Supports, by subtype, that guttate psoriasis outbreaks are often triggered by an upper respiratory infection such as strep throat. Also supports that pustular psoriasis symptoms can be triggered by medications, infections, stress, or certain chemicals. Also supports that erythrodermic psoriasis can be triggered by a bad sunburn or certain medications including corticosteroids. Also supports, by subtype, that inverse psoriasis appears as smooth patches of inflamed skin in skin folds. It names the armpits, the groin, and under the breasts as those folds. It records that rubbing and sweating can make inverse psoriasis worse.
What it does not support
Does not give a percentage of patients affected. Does not measure how much sleep is lost. Does not establish that treating the skin fixes the sleep problem for any one person. Its trigger information is organized by psoriasis subtype, not as one general list for plaque psoriasis specifically. It counts nothing for inverse psoriasis either. It gives no share of people affected in a fold or genital site, and it names no treatment for one.
- National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports a broad patient-facing map of topical treatment, phototherapy, oral systemic treatment and biologic treatment. Also supports that a doctor usually diagnoses psoriasis by examining the skin, scalp and nails, and by asking about itchy or burning skin, medications, family history, recent illness or severe stress, and joint tenderness. Also supports that a doctor may take a small skin sample to examine under a microscope to rule out other skin conditions that look like psoriasis.
What it does not support
It does not rank categories or choose treatment for a particular person. It does not list a blood test as part of diagnosing psoriasis itself, and it does not diagnose psoriatic arthritis.
- National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports bringing joint, tendon, swelling, stiffness and nail concerns to a clinician because diagnosis uses clinical assessment and may require further evaluation.
What it does not support
It is not an online screening result and cannot diagnose psoriatic arthritis from a checklist.
- National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports a patient-facing description of clinician diagnosis using history and examination, possible use of a Wood lamp and selected tests, broad treatment categories, variable response and whole-person support.
What it does not support
It is educational context, not primary efficacy evidence, an online diagnostic method or a universal testing checklist.
- National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that vitiligo is an autoimmune disease in which the immune system attacks melanocytes. Researchers believe family history and genes may play a role. An event such as sunburn, emotional distress, or chemical exposure can sometimes trigger vitiligo or make it worse. These are contributing factors, not a single determined cause repeated in every case.
What it does not support
It does not state that there is no single known cause. It does not rule out a specific trigger for one individual. It does not let a reader diagnose their own cause from a remembered event or timeline.
- National Institute of Mental HealthPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports seeking professional help when mental-health concerns interfere with life and using the U.S.
What it does not support
988 Lifeline or emergency services when there are thoughts of self-harm or immediate danger. The source gives only a 2025 revision year; it does not diagnose a condition, assess an individual’s safety or provide crisis services outside the United States.
- National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The organization publishes patient education, but the editorial and funding independence of this page was not separately reviewed.
What this source supports
Supports that psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease. It causes inflammation in the body. Raised plaques and scale on the skin are the visible sign. Supports that an overactive immune system speeds up skin-cell growth. Skin cells normally take about a month to grow and shed. With psoriasis they do so in three or four days. Supports that psoriasis is a chronic, long-term disease with no cure.
What it does not support
Does not predict whether one person will clear, stay the same, or flare. Does not give a share of people who reach a period with little or no psoriasis, or how long such a period lasts. The page shows no visible byline or update date. The site copyright year, 2026, is used here.
- National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The organization provides patient education, but its editorial and funding independence for this page was not independently reviewed. It is used only for patient-facing class-grouping, administration-route, and screening context.
What this source supports
Supports that biologics for psoriasis are identified by their immune target. Named groupings include TNF-alpha inhibitors (naming Enbrel, Humira, Remicade as examples), IL-17 inhibitors (blocking interleukin 17-A), IL-23 inhibitors (blocking interleukins 12 and 23), IL-36 inhibitors, and T-cell inhibitors. Supports that biologics are taken by injection or IV infusion depending on the label, and that some injections can be self-administered at home. Supports that screening for tuberculosis or other infectious disease is often required before starting, and that biologics can increase infection risk, with fever, cough, or flu-like symptoms as signs to report right away.
What it does not support
Does not report a complete, single four-class taxonomy in one place, PASI or trial-response data, dosing frequency, cost, or a full side-effect list. Does not predict an individual reader’s response or risk.
- National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports bringing a symptom tracker, kept on paper or on a phone, to share with a doctor at an appointment. Supports clearly describing symptoms and noting changes in severity and affected areas as part of preparing for a visit.
What it does not support
Does not mention photographing skin changes specifically. The page shows no visible byline or update date. The site copyright year, 2026, is used here.
- National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
It supports that the Seal of Recognition highlights cosmetic products created or intended to be non-irritating and safe for people with psoriatic disease or sensitive skin. It supports that the foundation reviews a product before the seal is granted. It supports the foundation's own stated limit on that review. The seal does not guarantee an individual will not have an adverse reaction to a labelled product. It directs a person to confirm with a health care provider that a recognised product will not interfere with other prescribed treatment.
What it does not support
It is a product-recognition programme page, not a clinical study, and it sets no standard for how well any product covers a plaque. It names individual recognised products but is not used here to endorse or rank any of them. It does not replace a dermatologist or pharmacist check for a specific prescribed treatment.
- National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The organization provides patient education, but its editorial and funding independence for this page was not independently reviewed. It is used only for patient-facing treatment-category and monitoring context.
What this source supports
Supports that cyclosporine suppresses the immune system and slows the growth of certain immune cells. Supports that it is taken daily by mouth as a capsule or liquid, and that a lower dose may be used when combined with a topical treatment. Supports that the FDA recommends cyclosporine not be used for longer than one year, though some doctors prescribe it longer, and that there is no specific guideline for how long to wait before resuming it. Supports that some improvement can appear after two weeks on stronger doses, with three to four months typically needed to reach optimal control. Supports that people previously treated with methotrexate, PUVA, UVB, coal tar, or radiation therapy face an increased skin-cancer risk on cyclosporine. Supports that kidney function is monitored before and during treatment, blood pressure is checked frequently, grapefruit juice should be avoided, and vaccines may be less effective while on cyclosporine.
What it does not support
Does not report an exact monitoring interval as a single universal schedule, does not report a psoriasis-specific trial population, and does not assess an individual reader’s risk.
- National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The National Psoriasis Foundation names its corporate members on its own site (psoriasis.org/corporate-members/, checked 2026-09-09). They include AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Amgen, Sun Pharma, Arcutis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, and Alumis. Several of those firms make the drugs step therapy and copay-card rules affect. NPF also lobbies against both practices. This number and its framing come from a group with a stake in the fight, even though NPF says it does not back one drug over another.
What this source supports
Supports that a 2020 NPF survey found 80% of people with private insurance who use a biologic use a copay card from the drug's maker to pay for it. Supports that a copay accumulator program (CAAP) is a health-plan rule: it does not count that card money toward the deductible or the yearly cap. Also supports that NPF says these programs are becoming more common.
What it does not support
Does not give the survey's size or its margin of error. Does not say if any one plan runs a copay accumulator or maximizer program, or which states limit the practice. The page shows no post or update date; the date used here is the year of the survey it names, so the page itself may be newer. Does not guess what any one person will owe.
- National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The organization provides patient education, but its editorial and funding independence for this page was not independently reviewed. It is used only for patient-facing treatment-category and monitoring context.
What this source supports
Supports that methotrexate binds to and inhibits an enzyme involved in the rapid growth of skin cells, slowing that growth. Supports that regular blood tests are required to confirm the drug is being safely processed by the liver, white blood cells, and bone marrow. Supports that less common long-term risks include liver damage and reversible liver scarring, a reduced white blood cell count with higher infection risk, and rare lymphoma or bone marrow toxicity. Supports that alcohol should be avoided to reduce liver problems. Supports that men should be off methotrexate at least three months, and women at least four months, before trying to conceive.
What it does not support
Does not report an exact monitoring interval as a single universal schedule, does not report a psoriasis-specific trial population, and does not assess an individual reader’s risk.
- National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The organization provides patient education, but its editorial and funding independence for this page was not independently reviewed.
What this source supports
Supports that Dovonex (calcipotriene), a synthetic vitamin D3, slows skin cell growth, flattens plaques, and removes scale, and treats scalp and nail psoriasis. Supports that Vectical (calcitriol), the naturally occurring active form of vitamin D3, helps control excessive skin cell production and cannot be applied to the face, lips, or eyes. Supports that Taclonex combines calcipotriene with a steroid. Calcipotriene side effects listed: skin irritation, stinging, burning, dry skin, peeling, rash, dermatitis, and worsening of psoriasis. Calcitriol side effects: excessive calcium in urine is common. An extremely uncommon side effect is a change in calcium metabolism limits, which should stop treatment until calcium normalizes. Increased skin tumor risk from light sensitivity is also noted. Supports that Tazorac (tazarotene), a vitamin A derivative topical retinoid, slows skin cell growth. It is normal for psoriasis plaques to become very red, often intensely so but generally not painful, before clearing when using tazarotene. Tazarotene side effects include skin irritation, dry skin, and increased sun sensitivity; sunscreen and protective clothing are recommended during use.
What it does not support
It does not give an application frequency for calcitriol, name a percentage of people who improve, or publish pricing. It does not mention combining tazarotene with a steroid or include a pregnancy warning for tazarotene on this page.
- National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The National Psoriasis Foundation names its corporate members on its own site (psoriasis.org/corporate-members/, checked 2026-09-09). They include AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Amgen, Sun Pharma, Arcutis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, and Alumis. Several of those firms make the drugs step therapy and copay-card rules affect. NPF also lobbies against both practices. This number and its framing come from a group with a stake in the fight, even though NPF says it does not back one drug over another.
What this source supports
Supports that NPF adopted a two-class definition. Mild psoriasis can be managed with topical therapies. Moderate-to-severe psoriasis makes a person a candidate for advanced therapies. Supports its statement that "Moderate-to-severe psoriasis is not determined solely by body surface area (BSA) involvement of 10%." Supports that psoriasis on a high-impact site counts too. NPF gives those sites as the face, scalp, hands, feet, nails or genitals. It says such patients "should also be considered as having 'moderate-to-severe' disease". Supports that the same holds for people who cannot get adequate control from topical therapies. Supports its statement that "People with psoriasis should never be denied advanced care because of outdated measures."
What it does not support
Does not set any health plan's coverage rule and does not bind a payer. Does not name prior authorization, appeals or denial steps. Gives no appeal deadline and no appeal process. Does not say how much topical treatment counts as inadequate control, or over what period. Does not establish that a given reader is a candidate for a named therapy. It predicts nothing about what a plan will decide.
- National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The organization provides patient education, but its editorial and funding independence for this page was not independently reviewed. It is used only for patient-facing treatment-category context.
What this source supports
Supports patient-facing context that methotrexate, apremilast, deucravacitinib and acitretin are real oral treatment options discussed in psoriasis care.
What it does not support
It does not determine personal suitability, comparative benefit, coverage or a treatment sequence.
- National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The organization provides patient education, but its editorial and funding independence for this page was not independently reviewed. It is used only for patient-facing treatment-category and combination context.
What this source supports
Supports that Otezla (apremilast) treats psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis by inhibiting PDE4, an enzyme that controls much of the inflammatory action within cells. Supports that it operates similarly to biologic treatments by targeting specific immune-system components. Supports that it comes as a 30 mg tablet requiring a five-day dose-escalation period before reaching the recommended 30 mg twice-daily dose. Supports that continuous use is necessary to maintain benefits. Supports that Otezla has been shown to be safe and effective when taken with methotrexate, and can be combined with phototherapy or topical treatments. Supports common side effects including diarrhea, nausea, tension headaches, and upper respiratory infections. Supports that severe gastrointestinal issues, depression, and weight loss were documented in some trial patients.
What it does not support
Does not report cost, insurance coverage, patient-assistance-program terms, or comparative-effectiveness data against other psoriasis treatments, and does not assess an individual reader’s risk.
- National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The organization provides patient education and its own navigation service, but its editorial and funding independence for this page was not independently reviewed. It is used only for the quoted description of its own Patient Navigator service.
What this source supports
Supports that the National Psoriasis Foundation offers a Patient Navigator. The page describes it as available to "connect with a friendly, experienced Patient Navigator for personalized help getting the treatment you need."
What it does not support
Does not report specific manufacturer copay-program terms, patient-assistance-program eligibility, or pricing for any named biologic. Does not guarantee outcome or eligibility for a specific reader.
- National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the Foundation’s patient-facing interpretation that private transfer of a prescription phototherapy unit should be facilitated by a physician or licensed manufacturer or distributor.
What it does not support
It is not a regulator opinion, does not resolve every federal or state issue, and does not establish that a specific transaction or device is permitted, serviceable, or appropriate.
- National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that narrowband UVB penetrates the skin and slows the growth of affected skin cells, using a smaller range of ultraviolet light than broad-band UVB. Supports that narrowband UVB may require fewer treatments per week than broad-band UVB, may clear psoriasis faster, and may produce longer remissions. Supports that phototherapy overall has high success rates in improving psoriasis symptoms without stating an exact percentage. Supports the side effects of redness, stinging, and burns, and the increased long-term risk of skin cancer, and recommends discussing risks with a healthcare provider and keeping regular check-ups under medical supervision.
What it does not support
Does not state a specific number of sessions per week, a timeline to results, an exact side-effect rate, or pricing or insurance-coverage detail.
- National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports, citing the foundation's own Psoriasis Health Indicator Report, family-risk figures for lifetime risk of developing psoriasis. If neither parent has it, the figure is 4 per cent. If one parent has it, the figure is 14 to 28 per cent. If both parents have it, the figure is 40 to 65 per cent. Supports that these figures rise further if a child in the family already has psoriasis. That is 24 per cent with no affected parent, 51 per cent with one, and 83 per cent with both. Supports that lifetime risk is strongly associated with family history. Also supports that anyone can develop psoriasis regardless of family history.
What it does not support
It is patient education summarizing a foundation survey report, not the underlying study. It gives no figure for one named family and no age by which risk is resolved. It names no gene and no test. It does not diagnose anybody or set a screening plan.
- National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that no diet cures psoriatic disease, and that eating patterns may lessen symptom severity for some people. Supports a Mediterranean-style pattern: cold-water fish at least twice a week, plus fruits, vegetables, whole grains, low-fat dairy, and lean meat and poultry without skin. Supports limiting alcohol, sodium, trans and saturated fats, and refined sugar and processed food. The alcohol limit is one drink a day for women and two for men, or none for severe psoriasis. The sodium limit is under 1,500 mg a day. Supports that a gluten-free diet is recommended only for confirmed gluten sensitivity or celiac disease. Supports gradual weight loss, about 1 to 2 pounds a week, for people who are overweight. Supports using the CDC BMI calculator to find a target weight, as one part of managing the disease. Supports that omega-3 supplement research is mixed and needs more long-term controlled studies. Supports that vitamin D research is small and limited, and that too much vitamin D can be dangerous. Supports that no study has found glucosamine or chondroitin reduce psoriatic arthritis symptoms. Supports that supplements should never replace medication, and that you should talk with your health care provider before starting any diet change.
What it does not support
Does not give an effect size for how much any food pattern, weight change, or supplement changes symptoms for a given person. Does not recommend a single named diet over another beyond referencing Mediterranean-style eating. Does not substitute for a treatment plan.
- National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that tracking symptoms and common triggers over time can help a person figure out their own specific triggers. Supports naming stress, alcohol, and diet as examples of common triggers to watch for. Supports naming discolored skin patches and itching as psoriasis symptoms, and joint swelling and fatigue as psoriatic arthritis symptoms, to watch for. Supports using a worksheet to record daily symptoms and their severity, and sharing that worksheet with a health care provider.
What it does not support
Does not give a percentage or timeline for how much tracking changes any one outcome. Does not name every possible trigger - stress, alcohol, and diet are examples, not a complete list. Does not measure whether tracking itself helps or burdens a given person.
- National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The organization provides patient education, but its editorial and funding independence for this page was not independently reviewed. It is used only for patient-facing treatment-category and monitoring context.
What this source supports
Supports that Soriatane (acitretin) is FDA-approved for severe plaque, guttate, pustular, erythrodermic, or palmoplantar psoriasis in adults, and that the exact way it controls psoriasis is not known. Supports that it comes in 10 mg and 25 mg capsules taken once daily with food, with the dose adjusted by individual response. Supports that skin improvement usually appears after eight to sixteen weeks, and that peak effect can take up to six months, especially for plaque psoriasis. Supports that it is often combined with phototherapy, and sometimes with biologics or used in rotation with cyclosporine or methotrexate. Supports the pregnancy contraindication and the requirement for two negative pregnancy tests and two forms of birth control. Supports the restriction against alcohol during treatment and for two months after stopping, to prevent conversion to a longer-lasting related compound. Supports common side effects including hair loss, dry skin and mouth, bleeding gums, nosebleeds, peeling fingertips, mood changes, headache, joint pain, night-vision changes, and elevated liver enzymes. Supports the three-year blood-donation restriction after stopping treatment.
What it does not support
Does not report a psoriasis-specific clinical-trial population size, does not report an exact reaction rate, and does not assess an individual reader’s risk.
- National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The organization provides patient education, but its editorial and funding independence for this page was not independently reviewed. It is used only for patient-facing mechanism and treatment-category context.
What this source supports
Supports that Sotyktu is the brand name for deucravacitinib, an oral systemic treatment taken once daily by mouth. Supports that it works similarly to biologics by targeting the TYK2 part of the immune system, reducing the overactive immune response behind psoriasis. Supports that it was the first tyrosine kinase inhibitor approved for psoriasis. Supports that it was the first novel oral therapy for psoriasis in a decade. Supports the plain-language list of common side effects: upper respiratory infection, elevated blood creatine phosphokinase, herpes simplex, mouth ulcers, folliculitis, and acne.
What it does not support
Does not report titration details, PASI or trial-response data, dosing adjustments for organ impairment, or cost. Does not report comparative-effectiveness data against other psoriasis treatments, or assess an individual reader’s risk.
- National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The National Psoriasis Foundation names its corporate members on its own site (psoriasis.org/corporate-members/, checked 2026-09-09). They include AbbVie, Johnson & Johnson, Leo Pharma, Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Amgen, Sun Pharma, Arcutis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Takeda, and Alumis. Several of those firms make the drugs step therapy and copay-card rules affect. NPF also lobbies against both practices. This number and its framing come from a group with a stake in the fight, even though NPF says it does not back one drug over another.
What this source supports
Supports that a 2019 NPF patient survey found 41% of people with psoriatic disease had gone through step therapy. Supports that, by NPF's own count, more than 25 states have passed a step-therapy law. That law gives a patient a way to ask for an exception. Also supports that NPF wants that same process in every state.
What it does not support
Does not give the survey's size or its margin of error. Does not say which state laws name psoriasis drugs by name. Does not say if a given plan falls under state law at all; a plan an employer funds itself usually does not. The page shows no post or update date. The date used here is the newest state law it names: a Wisconsin law from July 2020. The page itself may be newer. The state count may be out of date too. Does not guess what any one plan will require.
- National Psoriasis FoundationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The organization provides patient education, but its editorial and funding independence for this page was not independently reviewed.
What this source supports
Supports that topical steroids range from super-potent to least potent, and that guidance advises not using one for longer than three weeks without checking with a clinician. Side effects include skin thinning, pigment change, easy bruising, stretch marks, redness and dilated blood vessels. Systemic absorption is a risk with widespread, prolonged or occluded use, and abruptly stopping a topical steroid can cause a psoriasis flare.
What it does not support
It does not name which specific product falls in which potency class, quantify how often a side effect occurs, or set a course length for any specific product or body site.
- NHSPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
It supports that a GP in the UK may recommend sun safety, a referral for camouflage creams, or a topical steroid. It supports that camouflage creams are made to match a range of skin tones and can be applied anywhere on the body. It supports that they are waterproof, and that they last up to 4 days on the body and 12 to 18 hours on the face. It supports that a GP may refer a person to a named UK skin camouflage service, that a person is trained in using the creams, that the service is free, and that some creams can be prescribed on the NHS.
What it does not support
The page set its own next review date at 22 March 2026, and it had not been reviewed when this record was verified. It describes UK care and sets no access, referral or prescribing route elsewhere. It names no product and gives no cost. It cannot say how long cover will last for one person, or how closely a colour will match. Its durability figures are for camouflage creams, and not for ordinary makeup or for self-tanner.
- NIH Office of Dietary SupplementsPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: A US government consumer fact sheet with no product to sell.
What this source supports
Supports that the NIH publishes an upper daily limit for vitamin D for adults, and that going far above it is a real hazard rather than a wasted purchase. It states that very high blood levels of vitamin D can cause nausea, vomiting, muscle weakness, confusion, pain, loss of appetite, dehydration, excessive urination and thirst, and kidney stones, and that extremely high levels can cause kidney failure, irregular heartbeat and death. It states that high levels are almost always caused by taking excessive amounts from supplements.
What it does not support
It is general consumer guidance and never mentions vitiligo. It does not evaluate any vitiligo treatment, assess the Coimbra protocol, establish what any one person’s level is or should be, or say what dose is right for anyone. Its own numbers are reported here as the NIH saying them and are never issued by this site as an instruction.
- Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Alliance (PAPAA)Patient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
It supports that skin camouflage can be used over psoriasis and over erythema (redness). It supports that camouflage works best when a plaque is close to flat against the surrounding unaffected skin. It supports that camouflage cannot alter the structure of the skin, only make a plaque less noticeable. It supports a four-step application method. Test a colour match next to, not on, the plaque, then mix up to two shades together. Apply over a flexed joint for easier coverage. Set the finish with loose powder and a fixing spray, which it says helps guard against ordinary flaking lifting the product. It supports that access differs by route. A dermatologist, GP or healthcare adviser can refer a person to an NHS clinic. Private practice needs no medical referral for psoriasis, though a fee may apply.
What it does not support
It is patient-facing guidance from a UK charity, not a clinical trial. It names no product or brand, gives no figure for how long any application lasts, and sets no UK-wide price. It is a UK access route only and says nothing about referral, cost, or availability anywhere else. It does not say a plaque is safe to cover before a dermatologist has diagnosed it.
- SteadySkin, ANKRD Labs LLCPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports SteadySkin’s own source tiers, confidence rules, review dates and publication gates.
What it does not support
It is a first-party editorial contract, not independent evidence that the process has been followed or clinical support for a health claim.
- StopBullying.gov, U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports listening to a child, identifying trusted adults, working with the child on a response and following through with school support.
What it does not support
It is general U.S. bullying guidance, not a Vitiligo-specific school protocol, a legal entitlement or a guarantee that a school response will stop harm.
- U.S. National Library of MedicinePatient education · Patient education, tier 5Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The registry is run by the National Library of Medicine, but the content of every study record it returns is supplied by that study’s sponsor or investigator. A result is a sponsor’s description of its own study, not an independent assessment of it.
What this source supports
Supports running the search itself: studies whose record names vitiligo, filtered to recruiting status and to locations in the United States. The result set changes without notice, which is why the page links the query rather than copying a count.
What it does not support
A search result is not evidence that any listed study treatment works, and not a government endorsement of it. It is not a complete list of vitiligo research, and not a determination that a reader qualifies for anything. Only the study team can assess eligibility.
- U.S. National Library of Medicine (MedlinePlus)Patient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports the adalimumab (Humira) label’s boxed-warning language. It states adalimumab injection may decrease the ability to fight infection and increase the chance of developing a serious infection. Supports that some children, teenagers, and young adults who received adalimumab or a similar medication developed severe or life-threatening cancers. Supports that adults receiving adalimumab may be more likely to develop skin cancer, lymphoma, and other cancers. Supports that a doctor will perform a TB skin test and may order a hepatitis B blood test before starting, and may treat a latent infection first if one is found.
What it does not support
Reports only on adalimumab, one drug in the TNF class, not on every TNF-class drug’s own label or on any IL-17, IL-23, or IL-12/23 drug. Does not report PASI/trial-response data, dosing frequency, or cost. Does not predict an individual reader’s risk.
- UnitedHealthcarePatient education · Patient education, tier 5Relevant relationship disclosed
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The insurer publishes its own network. The directory exists to describe who the plan pays for, not who is good at treating a condition.
What this source supports
Supports checking whether a named dermatologist is in a UnitedHealthcare network before booking. Network participation and the member contract, not what is written here, decide what is actually covered.
What it does not support
A directory listing is not evidence about a clinician. It does not establish relevant experience, current availability, quality of care, or that the listing is up to date, and none of these tools can be filtered by condition.
- World Health OrganizationPatient education · Patient education, tier 5Independent source
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
What this source supports
Supports that the index is a measure of the level of ultraviolet radiation, with values from zero upward. The higher the value, the greater the potential for damage to skin and eye, and the less time it takes for harm to occur. It supports that the index was developed by the World Health Organization with the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Meteorological Organization and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. It supports that reported values are the maximum daily level, which occurs during the four-hour period around solar noon. It supports that solar noon takes place between noon and 2 p.m., depending on geographical location and on daylight saving. It supports that some countries issue sun protection times when levels are forecast to be 3 or higher. It carries an action table. At 0 to 2 it says you can safely enjoy being outside. At 3 to 7 it says to seek shade during midday hours, and to slip on a shirt, slop on sunscreen and slap on a hat. At 8 and above it says to avoid being outside during midday hours, and that shade, a shirt, sunscreen and a hat are a must. It supports that below a value of 2 the risk is limited even for very sensitive fair-skinned people, and that no protective measures are normally needed. It supports that the index is reported with the weather forecast in many countries. This is the current restatement by the same body of the 2002 guide registered alongside it.
What it does not support
It is a public question-and-answer page, not a trial and not a measurement. It never mentions vitiligo and measures nothing about skin that has lost its pigment. Its action table is a recommendation from the World Health Organization, reported here in its own words and never issued by this site. It gives no exposure time for any person. It does not describe or address phototherapy prescribed by a clinician. It cannot say what any value will do to one person.
- Pseudonymous poster in an online support groupCommunity · Lived experience - not evidence, tier 6Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The author is pseudonymous. Their identity, product use, other treatments, adherence, and financial or organizational relationships cannot be verified.
What this source supports
Question discovery only: this public discussion contains self-reported experiences that helped identify questions readers may bring to a clinician.
What it does not support
This discussion is not clinical evidence and does not support a treatment claim, frequency estimate, typical experience, safety conclusion, causal inference, or recommendation.
- Pseudonymous poster in an online support groupCommunity · Lived experience - not evidence, tier 6Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The author is pseudonymous. Their identity, product use, other treatments, adherence, and financial or organizational relationships cannot be verified.
What this source supports
Question discovery only: this public discussion contains self-reported experiences that helped identify questions readers may bring to a clinician.
What it does not support
This discussion is not clinical evidence and does not support a treatment claim, frequency estimate, typical experience, safety conclusion, causal inference, or recommendation.
- Pseudonymous poster in an online support groupCommunity · Lived experience - not evidence, tier 6Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The author is pseudonymous. Their identity, product use, other treatments, adherence, and financial or organizational relationships cannot be verified.
What this source supports
Question discovery only: this public discussion contains self-reported experiences that helped identify questions readers may bring to a clinician.
What it does not support
This discussion is not clinical evidence and does not support a treatment claim, frequency estimate, typical experience, safety conclusion, causal inference, or recommendation.
- Pseudonymous poster in an online support groupCommunity · Lived experience - not evidence, tier 6Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The author is pseudonymous. Their identity, product use, other treatments, adherence, and financial or organizational relationships cannot be verified.
What this source supports
Question discovery only: this public discussion contains self-reported experiences that helped identify questions readers may bring to a clinician.
What it does not support
This discussion is not clinical evidence and does not support a treatment claim, frequency estimate, typical experience, safety conclusion, causal inference, or recommendation.
- Pseudonymous poster in an online support groupCommunity · Lived experience - not evidence, tier 6Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The author is pseudonymous. Their identity, product use, other treatments, adherence, and financial or organizational relationships cannot be verified.
What this source supports
Question discovery only: this public discussion contains self-reported experiences that helped identify questions readers may bring to a clinician.
What it does not support
This discussion is not clinical evidence and does not support a treatment claim, frequency estimate, typical experience, safety conclusion, causal inference, or recommendation.
- Pseudonymous poster in an online support groupCommunity · Lived experience - not evidence, tier 6Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The author is pseudonymous. Their identity, product use, other treatments, adherence, and financial or organizational relationships cannot be verified.
What this source supports
Question discovery only: this public discussion contains self-reported experiences that helped identify questions readers may bring to a clinician.
What it does not support
This discussion is not clinical evidence and does not support a treatment claim, frequency estimate, typical experience, safety conclusion, causal inference, or recommendation.
- Pseudonymous poster in an online support groupCommunity · Lived experience - not evidence, tier 6Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The author is pseudonymous. Their identity, product use, other treatments, adherence, and financial or organizational relationships cannot be verified.
What this source supports
Question discovery only: this public discussion contains self-reported experiences that helped identify questions readers may bring to a clinician.
What it does not support
This discussion is not clinical evidence and does not support a treatment claim, frequency estimate, typical experience, safety conclusion, causal inference, or recommendation.
- Pseudonymous poster in an online support groupCommunity · Lived experience - not evidence, tier 6Independence not established
- Published
- SteadySkin last checked
What this source can and cannot tell you
Why the independence label says this: The author is pseudonymous. Their identity, product use, other treatments, adherence, and financial or organizational relationships cannot be verified.
What this source supports
Question discovery only: this public discussion contains self-reported experiences that helped identify questions readers may bring to a clinician.
What it does not support
This discussion is not clinical evidence and does not support a treatment claim, frequency estimate, typical experience, safety conclusion, causal inference, or recommendation.
What to do next
If you are checking a claim, start with the evidence method and then open the source's limits. If you are looking for a study to join, use the clinical-trial search guide; SteadySkin does not copy a trial list or count that can go stale.
Found a source mismatch or an overstatement? Use the corrections process.