Reviewing the Evidence Base for Topical Steroid Withdrawal Syndrome in the Research Literature and Social Media Platforms: An Evidence Gap Map
2024

Reviewing the Evidence on Topical Steroid Withdrawal Syndrome

Sample size: 304 publication 10 minutes Evidence: low

Author Information

Author(s): Amy Schwartz, Belinda Sheary, Jeremy Brown, Diane Peacock, Ellie Choi, Noreen Orr, Morwenna Rogers, Abigail Stein, Jo Thompson Coon, Kenneth Stein

Primary Institution: University of Exeter Medical School

Hypothesis

This study aims to identify the range, extent, and type of evidence on topical steroid withdrawal syndrome (TSWS) in research literature and social media platforms.

Conclusion

The evidence gap map shows that while research on TSWS is growing, significant gaps remain in understanding its long-term effects and patient experiences.

Supporting Evidence

  • 81 academic publications and 223 social media posts were included in the evidence gap map.
  • The research evidence mainly addressed the physical symptoms of TSWS and treatments.
  • Social media evidence focused on physical and mental health symptoms, relationships, and everyday activities.
  • Longer-term studies on the safety of prolonged use of topical corticosteroids are needed.
  • Qualitative research is necessary to understand the lived experiences of individuals with TSWS.

Takeaway

This study looked at how people are talking about the problems caused by stopping steroid creams, both in research and on social media, and found that there are still many things we don't know.

Methodology

The study involved searching multiple databases for academic publications and social media posts, screening them for relevance, and creating an evidence gap map.

Potential Biases

Social media evidence may not represent the experiences of all individuals with TSWS, as it is based on a self-selecting sample.

Limitations

The study did not conduct quality appraisal of the included studies and relied on publicly available data.

Participant Demographics

The research evidence primarily focused on adults, with some studies including children and infants.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.2196/57687

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication