Body dysmorphic disorder among dermatologic patients: Prevalence and clinical features

Background: An impairing preoccupation with a nonexistent or slight defect in appearance is the core symptom of body dysmorphic disorder (ODD), a psychiatric condition common in dermatology settings. Objective: We sought to determine the prevalence of ODD in dermatologic patients, comparing general and cosmetic settings, and describing some demographic and clinical characteristics. Methods: In all, 300 patients were consecutively assessed. Screening and diagnoses were performed with validated instruments plus a best estimate diagnosis procedure. The final sample comprised 150 patients in the cosmetic group, 150 patients in the general dermatology group, and 50 control subjects. Standard statistical analyses were performed (chi(2), nonparametric tests, logistic regression). Results: The current prevalence was higher in the cosmetic group (14.0%) compared with general (6.7%) and control (2.0%) groups. No patient had a previous diagnosis. Frequently the reason for seeking dermatologic treatment was not the main ODD preoccupation. Patients with ODD from the cosmetic group were in general unsatisfied with the results of dermatologic treatments. Limitations: Cross-sectional study conducted in a university hospital is a limitation. It is uncertain if the findings can be generalized. Retrospective data regarding previous treatments are not free from bias. Conclusions: BUD is relatively common in a dermatologic setting, especially among patients seeking cosmetic treatments. These patients have some different features compared with general dermatology patients. Dermatologists should be aware of the clinical characteristics of ODD to identify and refer these patients to mental health professionals. (J Am Acad Dermatol 2010;63:235-43.)

COMBINATION OFGENERAL AND SPECIFICWARM-UPS IMPROVES LEG-PRESS ONE REPETITION MAXIMUM COMPARED WITH SPECIFIC WARM-UP IN TRAINED INDIVIDUALS

Abad, CCC, Prado, ML, Ugrinowitsch, C, Tricoli, V, and Barroso, R. Combination of general and specific warm-ups improves leg-press one repetition maximum compared with specific warm-up in trained individuals. J Strength Cond Res 25(8): 2242-2245, 2011-Accurate assessment of muscular strength is critical for exercise prescription and functional evaluation. The warm-up protocol may affect the precision of the 1 repetition maximum (1RM) test. Testing guidelines recommend performing both general and specific warm-ups before strength tests. The general warm-up intends to raise muscle temperature, whereas the specific warm-up aims to increase neuromuscular activation. Although there is scientific evidence for performing the specific warm-up, the effects of general warm-up on strength tests are still unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the combination of a general with a specific warm-up (G + SWU) protocol would improve leg press 1RM values compared with a specific warm-up (SWU) protocol. Thirteen participants were tested for leg-press 1RM under 2 warm-up conditions. In the first condition, participants performed the SWU only, which was composed of 1 set of 8 repetitions at approximately 50% of the estimated 1RM followed by another set of 3 repetitions at 70% of the estimated 1RM. In the second condition (G + SWU), participants performed the 1RM test after a 20-minute general warm-up on a stationary bicycle at 60% of HRmax and the same specific warm-up as in the SWU. Values of 1RM in SWU and in G + SWU were compared by a paired t-test, and significance level was set at p <= 0.05. Strength values were on average 8.4% (p = 0.002) higher in the G + SWU compared with the SWU. These results suggest that the G + SWU induced temperature-dependent neuromuscular adjustments that increased muscle force production capacity. Therefore, these results support the recommendations of the testing guidelines to perform a moderate intensity general warm-up in addition to the specific warm-up before maximum strength assessments.