Trial reportBMJ open2015
Proposal for an annual skin examination by a general practitioner for patients at high risk for melanoma: a French cohort study.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01610531 (COPARIME), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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.
COPARIME: Pilot Study of a Target Detection of Malignant Melanoma
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of Smartphones for Early Detection of Melanoma: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Pooled it
- Diagnosing malignant melanoma in ambulatory care: a systematic review of clinical prediction rules.BMJ open · 2017Pooled it
- Article
- Melanoma Prevention: Comparison of Different Screening Methods for the Selection of a High Risk Population.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of a targeted screening for melanoma in high-risk patients following the receipt of a mailed invitation to an annual skin examination by a general practitioner (GP).
methodsA prospective cohort study was conducted in a primary care setting in western France. A total of 3897 patients at elevated risk of melanoma (identified using the Self-Assessment of Melanoma Risk Score) consented to participate in a targeted melanoma screening project in 2011. One year later, the participants were invited by mail to consult their GP for an annual skin examination. Efficacy of the procedure was evaluated according to patient participation and the number of melanomas detected. The consultation dates and results were collected during the 12 months postreminder and were analysed using SAS. Analyses of whether participation decreased compared with that during the year of inclusion and whether populations at risk for thick melanoma showed reduced participation in the screening were performed.
resultsOf the 3745 patients who received the mailed invitation, 61% underwent a skin examination. The participation of patients at risk for thick melanoma (any patient over 60 years of age and men over 50 years of age) was significantly greater than that of the patients in the other subgroups (72.4% vs 49.6%, p<0.001; and 66% vs 52.4%, p<0.001, respectively). The patients referred to the dermatologist after 1 year were more compliant compared with those referred during the first year (68.8% vs 59.1%, p=0.003). Six melanomas were detected within 1 year postreminder; therefore, the incidence of melanoma in the study population was 160/100 000.
conclusionsThis study confirms the benefits of developing a targeted screening strategy in primary care. In particular, after the annual reminder, patient participation and the diagnosis of melanoma remained high in the patients at elevated risk of thick melanomas. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01610531.
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.