ArticleCurrent dermatology reports2017
Epidemiology of Keratinocyte Carcinoma.
Article in Current dermatology reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of a toolbox for the prevention of skin cancer among outdoor workers: an intervention study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Advanced non-melanoma skin cancer in elderly patients: When surgery says NO, interventional radiotherapy (brachytherapy) says YES.Journal of contemporary brachytherapy · 2023Article
- Review
- Mechanisms of UV-induced mutations and skin cancer.Genome instability & disease · 2020Article
- Characteristics of State and Federal Malpractice Litigation of Medical Liability Claims for Keratinocyte Carcinoma, 1968 to 2018.JAMA dermatology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of the reviewTo provide a synopsis of recent research advances in the epidemiology of keratinocyte carcinoma (KC), with a focus on indoor tanning and known risk factors for other forms of cancer such as cigarette smoking and alcohol drinking. RECENT
findingsThe evidence is strong enough to infer that use of UVR-emitting indoor tanning devices cause KC. Epidemiologic studies of cigarette smoking, alcohol drinking, and menopausal hormone therapy all show some suggestion for increased risk of KC but the evidence is not yet strong enough to determine if there is a true etiologic role. Body mass index is clearly inversely associated with KC risk but this is more likely to be due to lower UVR exposure in overweight and obese individuals than it is due to a true etiologic role. SUMMARY: The epidemic of KC continues unabated, and the causal role of indoor tanning is contributing to this unfavorable trend in KC incidence rates. Advances in understanding the etiology of KC should not divert attention away from the fact that the primary public health strategy to prevent KC is known: minimize population exposure to UVR from the sun and from UVR-emitting indoor tanning devices, particularly among those with sun-sensitive phenotypes.
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.