ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Dermatology2015
Traditional versus streamlined management of basal cell carcinoma (BCC): A cost analysis.
Article in Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Streamlined Management of Basal Cell Carcinoma with Dermoscopy: A Retrospective Case-Control Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Proposal of a new dermoscopic criterion for pigmented basal cell carcinoma: a multicentre retrospective study.Dermatology reports · 2024Article
- Association of Multiple Aggregated Yellow-White Globules With Nonpigmented Basal Cell Carcinoma.JAMA dermatology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFacing rising incidence of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and increasing pressure to contain health care spending, physicians need to contemplate cost-effective paradigms for managing BCC.
objectiveWe sought to perform a cost analysis comparing the traditional BCC management scheme with a simplified detect-and-treat scheme that eliminates the biopsy before initiating definitive treatment.
methodsA decision analytic model was developed to compare the costs of traditional BCC management with the detect-and-treat scheme, under which qualifying lesions diagnosed clinically were either treated with shave removal or referred to Mohs micrographic surgery for on-site histologic check. Values for model parameters were based on literature and our institutional data analysis. Costs were based on 2014 Medicare fee schedule.
resultsThe average cost per lesion with detect-and-treat scheme was $449 for non-Mohs micrographic surgery-indicated lesions (vs $566 with traditional management, $117 in savings) and $819 for Mohs micrographic surgery-indicated lesions (vs $864 with traditional management, $45 in savings). The combined weighted average savings per case was $95 (15% of total average cost). Conclusions were similar under various plausible scenarios. LIMITATIONS: Model parameter values may vary based on individual practices.
conclusionsA simplified management strategy eliminating routine pretreatment biopsy can reduce BCC treatment cost without compromising quality of care.
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.