Search

The terminology, classification, diagnosis and treatment of self-inflicted dermatological lesions are subjects of open debate. The present study is the result of various meetings of a task force of dermatologists, psychiatrists and psychologists, all active in the field of psychodermatology, aimed at clarifying the terminology related to these disorders. A flow chart and glossary of terms and definitions are presented to facilitate the classification and management of self-inflicted skin lesions. Several terms are critically discussed, including: malingering; factitious disorders; Miinchausen's syndrome; simulation; pathomimicry; skin picking syndrome and related skin damaging disorders; compulsive and impulsive skin picking; impulse control disorders; obsessive compulsive spectrum disorders; trichotillomania; dermatitis artefacta; factitial dermatitis; acne excoriée; and neurotic and psychogenic excoriations. Self-inflicted skin lesions are often correlated with mental disorders and/or pathological behaviours, thus it is important for dermatologists to become as familiar as possible with the psychiatric and psychological aspects underlying these lesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A quiz is presented concerning the diagnosis of a 21-year-old woman with wrinkling in the palm fissures after contact with water.

Background: During the recent COVID-19 outbreak, masks became mandatory and shortages frequent, therefore the prevalence of non-CE (European Conformity Mark) approved masks increased in the general population. We aimed to quantify the prevalence of mask-related cutaneous side effects and the differences between CE and non-CE approved masks., Methods: In this multicenter prospective observational study conducted from March 20, 2020 to May 12, 2020(during and after quarantine), patients attending emergency departments for a dermatological consult were clinically assessed and their masks were inspected to detect CE marks and UNI (Italian National Unification Entity) norms. Patients with history of facial dermatoses or under current treatment for facial dermatoses were excluded., Results: We enrolled 412 patients (318 during quarantine and 94 after quarantine). CE-approved masks were observed 52.8% vs. 24.5%, whilst subsets of non-CE approved masks were 9.7% vs. 14.9% (Personal protective equipment (PPE)-masks), 16.4% vs. 12.8% (surgical masks [SM]), and 21.1% vs. 47.9%(non-PPE) and (non-SM masks), respectively during and after quarantine. Remarkably, non-CE-approved masks resulted in patients displaying a statistically significant higher incidence of facial dermatoses and irritant contact dermatitis compared to CE-approved masks, and these differences were mainly driven by non-PPE non-SM masks. Comparing quarantine and after quarantine periods, no statistically significant differences were found for CE-approved masks, whilst differences were detected in non-CE-approved masks regarding incidence of facial dermatoses (P<0.0001)and irritant contact dermatitis (P=0.0041)., Conclusions: Masks are essential to prevent COVID-19 but at the same time higher awareness regarding mask specifications should be promoted in the general population. Non-PPE and non-SM masks should undergo more rigorous testing to prevent the occurrence of cutaneous side effects and future patients' lawsuit damages.