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.
- 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 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.
- 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.
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.
- 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.
What it does not support
It does not approve calcipotriene for vitiligo, establish vitiligo benefit, or support a self-directed combination.
- 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.
- 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.
What it does not support
It does not approve pimecrolimus for vitiligo, establish vitiligo efficacy or resolve off-label guideline discussion of supervised combinations.
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.
What it does not support
The alopecia label does not establish a vitiligo indication, vitiligo-specific event rates, individual suitability, coverage, a 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.
- 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 does not guarantee benefit, establish suitability beyond the labeled population or authorize adding phototherapy.
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.
What it does not support
It does not approve tacrolimus for vitiligo, establish vitiligo efficacy, or resolve off-label guideline discussion of supervised combinations.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
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.
- 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.
- 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 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.
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 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 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 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.
- 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.
- 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 (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.
- 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.
- 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 (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.
- 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 small adult study of selected non-facial body lesions did not demonstrate effectiveness over vehicle.
What it does not support
It does not settle efficacy for facial lesions, children, other populations or combinations, and an author affiliation creates a commercial-independence limitation.
- 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 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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.
- 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.
- 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 this site does 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.
- 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: 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.
- 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.
- 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 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 this page, decide what is actually covered.
What it does not support
A directory listing is not evidence about a clinician. It does not establish vitiligo 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 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 vitiligo 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 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.
- 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.
- 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 this page, decide what is actually covered.
What it does not support
A directory listing is not evidence about a clinician. It does not establish vitiligo experience, current availability, quality of care, or that the listing is up to date, and none of these tools can be filtered by condition.
- 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 this site does 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 vitiligo 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 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.
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 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.
- 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 vitiligo 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.
- 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; nothing on this site uses them, 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 a broad patient-facing map of topical treatment, phototherapy, oral systemic treatment and biologic treatment.
What it does not support
It does not rank categories or choose treatment for a particular person.
- 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 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 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 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.
- 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.
- 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, publication gates and commitment to keep pediatric previews withheld until their additional gates close.
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.
- 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 this page, decide what is actually covered.
What it does not support
A directory listing is not evidence about a clinician. It does not establish vitiligo 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.