Cited by 80Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersBody Image and Dysmorphia StudiesDermatology and Skin Diseases

A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychiatric treatments for excoriation (skin-picking) disorder

Selles, Robert R., McGuire, Joseph F., Small, Brent J., Storch, Eric A.·2016·General Hospital Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective While individual trials suggest benefit of interventions for excoriation (skin-picking) disorder (ExD), limited systematic evaluation of treatments, or their collective benefit, exists.Methods The present study examined the current state of treatments for ExD in a systematic review and meta-analysis and explored potential treatment moderators. Twelve trials were identified for review, including five with a control condition. Of these, nine were eligible to be included in the meta-analysis (three with a control).Results A fixed-effects meta-analysis found a large overall treatment effect size (g=1.13), comprised of large effects for behavioral treatments (g=1.19), lamotrigine (g=0.98) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (g=1.09). Clinician-rated measures did not significantly differ from self-rated measures; however, larger effects were observed on self-rated measures of severity, as compared to impairment [Q(1)=4.63, P=.03]. Treatment type, trial length and trial methodological quality were not significant moderators. For controlled trials, the comparative efficacy of treatments for ExD was in the moderate range (g=0.47).Conclusion Findings suggest that treatment for ExD has benefit; however, the meta-analysis did not provide strong evidence to support any specific treatment or to suggest its unique clinical benefit over control conditions. Overall, there is a lack of study on treatments for ExD and additional randomized controlled trials with inclusion of multiple informants in assessment is needed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2016.04.001

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Selles, R. R., McGuire, J. F., Small, B. J., & Storch, E. A.
Affiliations
  • University of South Florida (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Selles, Robert R.
Venue
General Hospital Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-07
Volume
41
Pages
29-37
ISSN
0163-8343 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2345419929
Cited by
80
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 9
FWCI
1.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • General Hospital Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Body Image and Dysmorphia Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Dermatology and Skin Diseases
Keywords
excoriation disorder, skin picking disorder, psychiatric treatment, behavior therapy, lamotrigine, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, treatment moderators, treatment efficacy
MeSH terms
Behavior Therapy, Humans, Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders, Skin, Self-Injurious Behavior, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, Excitatory Amino Acid Antagonists

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review