Trial reportPediatrics2013
Practices of unregulated tanning facilities in Missouri: implications for statewide legislation.
Trial report in Pediatrics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Recall of indoor tanning salon warnings and safety guidelines among a national sample of tanners.Translational behavioral medicine · 2016Article
- Article
- Youth and tanning: a dangerous combination.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2013Review
- Stronger laws are needed to protect teens from indoor tanning.Pediatrics · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe incidence of skin cancer has increased in the United States, concomitant with increased UV radiation (UVR) exposure among young adults. We examined whether tanning facilities in Missouri, a state without indoor-tanning regulations, acted in accordance with the Food and Drug Administration's recommendations and consistently imparted information to potential clients about the known risks of UVR.
methodsWe conducted a statewide telephone survey of randomly selected tanning facilities in Missouri. Each tanning facility was surveyed twice, in the morning (7 am-3 pm) and evening (3-10 pm), on different days, to determine intrasalon consistency of information provided to potential clients at different times.
resultsOn average, 65% of 243 tanning-facility operators would allow children as young as 10 or 12 years old to use indoor-tanning devices, 80% claimed that indoor tanning would prevent future sunburns, and 43% claimed that there were no risks associated with indoor tanning. Intrasalon inconsistencies involved allowable age of use, and UVR exposure type and duration. Morning tanning-facility employees were more likely to allow consumers to start with maximum exposure times and UV-A-emitting devices (P < .001), whereas evening employees were more likely to allow 10- or 12-year-old children to use indoor-tanning devices (P = .008).
conclusionsDespite increasing evidence that UVR exposure in indoor-tanning devices is associated with skin cancer, ocular damage, and premature photoaging, tanning facilities in Missouri often misinformed consumers regarding these risks and lack of health benefits and inconsistently provided information about the Food and Drug Administration's guidelines for tanning devices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.