From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Medicine / Dermatology  (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Dermatology task force.

Eczema not equal to dermatitis[edit]

Eczema and dermatitis are NOT synonymous! Dermatitis is a generic term for any inflammation of the skin. (That is the definition of the word!) Eczema is a somewhat more specific term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


How is eczema pronounced? -- (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It always seems to be /'eksma/. If there's no disgreement, that could be included here. (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


I think that mechanism as a counterirritant is subject to discussion and controversy. Capsaicin is supposed to cause release of substance P from nerve terminals, and over a longer period of time is supposed to deplete substance P from nerve terminals. Pollira (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Dermatitis / eczema[edit]

The ICD10 uses the terms interchangeably. Thus so should we and I have merged.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Jmh649 Should this article be renamed to eczema? I saw that you changed atopic dermatitis to atopic eczema. It looks like "dermitis" is the word used in other languages on Wikidata. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
They are used interchangeably. No strong feeling which term it should be at. Happy to hear arguments. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
If we are following that ICD section, then dermatitis is used more frequently, including all the subheadings, although eczema is still used a bit. My personal preference would be dermatitis since the derivation of the word is closer to many other medical terms... Lesion (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)─────────────────────────

From the "for what it's worth" department, here is the rate of use for related search words on Google. I'd play to the masses and use eczema.
Avg. monthly searches

  • shingles 550,000
  • eczema 301,000
  • ringworm 301,000
  • impetigo 165,000
  • dermatologist 135,000
  • hives 135,000
  • rosacea 110,000
  • dermatitis 90,500

Ian Furst (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Side note Doc James, has the warning been lifted on Protopic? It worked great on erosive LP and BMMP but we stopped when the warning came out. Ian Furst (talk) 02:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Not entirely sure were it is at. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
  • We should not use the number of google hits to determine the naming of medical articles. Per the MEDMOS it is the most common name being used in recent, reliable secondary and tertiary sources. Lesion (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
In this case both, could qualify as the "scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources" and both are recognized by the WHO. Is there a rule against taking the search frequency into consideration? It seems like a good idea in this case. Ian Furst (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Imo, a pubmed search of review papers from the last 5 years would more closely highlight what we should do than a google search... Lesion (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
It was: dermatitis -1592, eczema -347. Many conditions have "dermatitis" in their title, so this is probably a pretty crude measure. Might be easier to just say "follow a major source like ICD or MeSH". Lesion (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay will support dermatitis Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Wrong edit about Greek meaning[edit]

User Omnipaedista wrote that Greek -ῖτις means "disease." This is certainly not true. The Greek word for disease is νόσος. The suffix -ῖτις in itself does not mean disease.--HD86 (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay so what do you propose to fix it for us non greek speakers? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Just revert it to the way it was before.--HD86 (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Eczema not equal to dermatitis[edit]

The previous editor was correct on this point. Eczema refers to skin inflammation of immune origin caused by substances originating within the body (e.g. some fungi). Whereas Dermatitis refers both to a similar condition caused by reactions to exogenous substances (such as perfumes). The two while indeed very similar often occur in different locations and under different circumstances. I have witnessed two Consultant skin specialists discussing which disease applied to a patient hence expert opinion clearly disagrees with this article.

Further the ICD-9/10 codes are no indication since they do often group multiple related diseases under a common marker. E.g. there are nine forms of diabetes, yet two ICD classifications. (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

ICD 10 says "In this block the terms dermatitis and eczema are used synonymously and interchangeably." [2]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Topical Steroid Addiction?[edit]

Is it really appropriate to have an entire paragraph about "topical steroid addiction"? I think that subject is, to put in mildly, controversial and most certainly is not yet accepted in mainstream dermatology. It's a fringe theory that has caused those who withdrew use months (or even years) of agony, with very mixed results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danwinters81 (talkcontribs) 05:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Removed information about bathing.[edit]

Bathing once or more a day is recommended.[1] It is a misconception that bathing dries the skin in people with eczema.[2]

I've removed the above text because the first sentence contradicts my doctor's advice and even some of the published material that cites it so even though I can't access the source, I know it doesn't say that. I've removed the second sentence because it also contradicts my doctor's advice and the source no longer exists to explain the reasoning. Sbluen (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Sbluen Your doctor would do well to read Wikipedia :-) Ref says "Bathing is usually recommended once a day and emollients once to twice a day, or even more often, depending on the clinical setting" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Mc2012 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Daily Skin Care Essential to Control Atopic Dermatitis article at American Academy of Dermatology's EczemaNet website". Retrieved 2009-03-24.

Were does the ref say only indicated for a short period of time?[edit]

"although topical steroids have side effects and are only indicated for a short period of time" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is the ref [3] which says "Corticosteroids of mild to moderate potency are used for maintenance treatment in mild to moderate eczema." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

This text "Treatment with steroids tends to be exclusively short-term, as prolonged use can produce side effects." This ref is not pubmed indexed Nnoruka, Edith; Daramola, Olaniyi; Ike, Samuel (2007). "Misuse and abuse of topical steroids: implications". Expert Review of Dermatology. 2 (1): 31–40. doi:10.1586/17469872.2.1.31. Retrieved 2014-12-18. And this one Sanjay, Rathi; D'Souza, Paschal (2012). "Rational and ethical use of topical corticosteroids based on safety and efficacy". Indian Journal of Dermatology. 57 (4): 251–259. doi:10.4103/0019-5154.97655. has an impact factor of zero. We need better reviews. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Adjusted with a better reference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Linking "side effects" to "Red burning skin" in the lead[edit]

This is an inappropriate link IMO. There are side effects other than red burning skin so it is undue weight. Also red burning skin is rare and not associated with normal use of topical steroids per [4].

It is not why the use of topical steroids is recommended to be limited to two weeks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

agree w/ DocJames,(per[5])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Sounds right to me. (As in Doc James's comment) PermStrump(talk) 16:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Experimental, nearing FDA approval treatments[edit]

I added the following to the treatments section and it was reverted by a user who believes these "are not treatments". I believe it is clear they are, as they have been developed to treat atopic dermatitis and already used in a significant number of trials. The fundamental definition of a treatment. Their current status almost at the completion of but not quite yet approved in the FDA process doesn't make them not a valid treatment. However, I don't wish to be in an edit war. I included a reference and many others are available showing they are notable I believe. I have no doubt anyone following WP:AGF can find coverage of both these treatments in medical/scientific literature. Perhaps they should be in a different section somehow but I believe these treatments and some others meet the standards of notability the definition of the word treatment concerning dermatitis and any other reasonable standard I can think of for inclusion at least as a brief mention in this article. I submit it for anyone here to discuss and would encourage someone other than myself to read this information so it isn't based solely on my opinion. Perhaps the section should be called, experimental and emerging treatments or something similar.

New treatments

Two new treatments have been in Phase III trials with potential FDA approval dates in 2017. One is dupilumab a monoclonal antibody which binds to the alpha subunit of the interleukin-4 receptor. The other is crisaborole which inhibits phosphodiesterase-4, including primarily PDE4B which causes inflamation.[1]

I was returning to this page to add the following additional note, also referenced in the article above but again for which I'm sure other references can be found.

Lebrikizumab, tralokinumab, and nemolizumab are some other experimental treatments in earlier stage trials.


  1. ^ Pierson , Randsell (2016-05-17). "Pfizer's Anacor deal showcases new wave of eczema therapies". Reuters. Retrieved 2016-10-21.

Phil (talk) 14:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

A "treatment" is something that is used by doctors to treat people. clinical research to learn if something is safe and effective is not clinical treatment. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Clinical trials as noted there "including new treatments" involve doctors treating people with a condition as has been happening here to validate its efficacy and safety. It is clear we disagree on this point and I'm soliciting others opinions and views. I feel this is clearly notable information and while you may disagree with my wording, rather than improving the wording, you removed the information entirely. In the interest of assuming good faith, I invite you to restore the information if your only concern is labeling it as a treatment, under what you feel is an appropriate heading, while awaiting consensus. I feel it is clearly defensible as notable and pertinent to those interested in dermatitis. Phil (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The other issue is that you put this in the medical section and sourced it to popular media. See WP:MEDRS. The content isn't useable anywhere in the article as you posed it. We sometimes have "research" sections but they too should be sourced to literature reviews from the biomedical literature, not news. Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
As more than half of Phase III trials fail, it is not appropriate to write into the article specifics about "new treatments" while there is still ongoing research. This seems more a category of WP:NOTNEWS or WP:CRYSTAL. Agree with Jytdog: the article doesn't have a "Research" section, so it may be okay to indicate target mechanisms being investigated in patients by citing WP:MEDRS-quality sources as reviews on the merits of the possible mechanisms. Fyi, most of the 10 monoclonal antibody studies registered with NIH and 5 for crisaborole are only at Phase I or II, i.e., a long way from being called "therapy". --Zefr (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Renaming it/moving it to something more appropriate is fine with me. And fixing it up with better sources, I'm sure you have more experience finding scientific/medical sources, I don't have much access to journals and such. Again those are great reasons to improve it, not remove it. Phil (talk) 16:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Asking other people to find acceptable refs for content you want added is a hallmark of what we call tendentious editing. There are a slew of problems with making the research section into a "pipeline", the biggest ones being the work to avoid WP:NOTNEWS and keeping it up to date (there are loads of examples where people tried to do that; they become uselessly outdated after a year or two and also become spam magnets). I have no interest in establishing such a section. I am happy to add treatments when they become actual treatments. Jytdog (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sugar and traditional medicine[edit]

WP:BRD and WP:NOTHOWTO - Removed from the article for discussion and awaiting source(s) being assessed by Autacoid. --Zefr (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Sugar: Excessive intake of sugary, cold, spicy, pickled, oily, or high-protein food or drinks disrupts the digestive system and increases the severity of eczema, especially during summer. Certain seafood (ex. crabs or shrimps), internal organs (ex. beef kidney), or dietary supplements (ex. ginseng) may cause eczema. And for patients with diabetic or pre-diabetic eczema, continuously elevated level of blood sugar from sugary foods restricts eczema sores or wounds from healing. Sucralose and sugar alcohols from "sugar-free" foods may still raise blood sugar level and cause eczema to flare.
  • Traditional medicine: In traditional asian medicine, Chinese foxnut (芡實/肇實/Qian Shi) (not to be confused with Indian Makhana) along with Job's tears (薏米/薏仁) (not to be confused with pearl barley), used either separately or better combined, is a very effective treatment for eczema. They can be prepared with lotus seed (蓮子) and Adzuki bean (紅豆) (asian red bean) to increase the efficacy and flavor. All four ingredients can be easily purchased in a typical asian grocery store. The regimen should be used as a replacement of the patient's usual staple foods such as wheat, rice, potato, or corn during the course of eczema.