Background Patients with skin of color are at risk for skin cancer, pigmentary disorders, and photo-exacerbated conditions but find it challenging to use sunscreens on the market that leave an obvious residue on their skin. Objective The objective of this study was to examine sunscreen recommendations from the popular press and from practicing dermatologists for patients with skin of color. Methods We queried the Google search engine with the following search terms: “Sunscreen” with “skin of color,” “dark skin,” “black skin.” For comparison, we also searched for “sunscreen” with “white skin,” “pale skin,” and “fair skin.” We conducted an anonymous survey regarding sunscreen recommendations among dermatology trainees and board-certified dermatologists. Results Websites with recommendations on sunscreens for patients with skin of color compared with sunscreens for white or fair skin were more likely to recommend chemical sunscreens (70% vs. 36%) and more expensive products (median: $14 vs. $11.3 per ounce), despite the lower sun protection factor level (median: 32.5 vs. 50). In our survey study, dermatologists were overall cost-conscious and felt that sun protection factor level, broad spectrum (ultraviolet A/B protection), and price were the most important features of sunscreens for their patients. Cosmetic elegance was deemed least important. Dermatologists overall counseled patients with skin of color less on sunscreen use, and 42.9% reported that they either never, rarely, or only sometimes take patients’ skin type into account when making sunscreen recommendations. Conclusion These data represent an area for growth within dermatology to improve culturally competent care by gaining familiarity with sunscreen types and formulations that are geared toward patients with skin of color.

No abstract

Background Increased interest in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) research is encouraging. A critical analysis of the state of HS literature may demonstrate the strength of existing knowledge and highlight current gaps. Objectives To analyse changes in HS literature from 2008 to 2018 with focus on quantity and quality of annual publications. Methods Review of all indexed publications reporting on HS on PubMed. Publications were categorized based on study design, study topic and treatment type where applicable. Publications were dichotomized into high level of evidence and low level of evidence groups. Linear regression analyses were performed to investigate the change in publication number over time. Annual average growth rate and distribution of high versus low level of evidence publications were calculated. Results Publication number increased over time overall (R2 = 0.64, P = 0.003) and for all publication types except randomized clinical trials. Case reports and case series represented the majority of HS publications (n = 479, 40.3%). Treatment was the main focus of publications (n = 445, 37.6%) with increasing interest in medical management evident in recent years. Distribution of low level of evidence studies (n = 974) compared with high level of evidence studies over time (n = 209) was significant (x2: 11.45, P = 0.0007). High level of evidence studies had a higher average annual growth rate (49.9%) compared with low level of evidence studies (23.7%). Few randomized clinical trials were performed (n = 16), focusing equally on medical or procedural treatments. Conclusions Hidradenitis suppurativa research is undergoing a tremendous shift, suggesting rapid maturation of the field. Current HS literature, however, remains primarily based on limited clinical observation data, with a particular lack of randomized clinical trials. Despite this, the increase in high level of evidence studies is encouraging and may herald a shift towards improved disease understanding and treatment paradigms.

No abstract