ABSTRACT
Nonpharmacological psychocutaneous treatments encompass a wide variety of structured and unstructured interventions, which may lead to amelioration of skin function. Nonpharmacological studies understandably lack the appeal of ‘‘drug studies’’ to the scientist. Drug studies allow for elucidation of chemical structures, pharmacological mechanisms of action, receptor specificity, etc. These are all relatively concrete constructs that allow the researcher to explain the observed defects. In contrast, nonpharmacological interventions are often more difficult to quantify and mechanisms of action more nebulous. Studies are often small, poorly controlled, and anecdotal and thus lack sufficient adherence to scientific method and statistical rigor to allow for definitive claims of efficacy. Further, the small numbers of patients in these studies do not adequately allow for the many biases influencing therapeutic outcome, e.g., investigator-patient individual characteristics, natural course of disease, and seasonal issues.
