Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29187412›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Protocol for the melatools skin self-monitoring trial: a phase II randomised controlled trial of an intervention for primary care patients at higher risk of melanoma.

Katie Mills, Jon Emery, Rebecca Lantaff, Michael Radford, Merel Pannebakker, Per Hall, Nigel Burrows, Kate Williams, Catherine L Saunders, Peter Murchie and 1 more

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Is high-flow safer than low-flow nasal oxygenation for procedural sedation?Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2021
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Katie MillsDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, The Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jon EmeryDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, The Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5274-6336
Rebecca LantaffDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, The Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Michael RadfordTennyson House Surgery, Chelmsford, Essex, UK.
Merel PannebakkerDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, The Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Per HallCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Nigel BurrowsCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Kate WilliamsDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, The Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Catherine L SaundersDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, The Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Peter MurchieDivision of Applied Health Science, Centre of Academic Primary Care, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Fiona M WalterDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, The Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7191-6476

Funding

Department of Health NIHR-CS-012-030
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMelanoma is the fifth most common cancer in the UK. Incidence rates have quadrupled over the last 30 years and continue to rise, especially among younger people. As routine screening of the general population is not currently recommended in the UK, a focus on secondary prevention through early detection and prompt treatment in individuals at increased risk of melanoma could make an important contribution to improve melanoma outcomes. This paper describes the protocol for a phase II, multisite, randomised controlled trial, in the primary care setting, for patients at increased risk of melanoma. A skin self-monitoring (SSM) smartphone 'App' was used to improve symptom appraisal and encourage help seeking in primary care, thereby promoting early presentation with skin changes suspicious of melanoma. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We aim to recruit 200 participants from general practice waiting rooms in the East of England. Eligible patients are those identified at higher melanoma risk (using a real-time risk assessment tool), without a personal history of melanoma, aged 18 to 75 years. Participants will be invited to a primary care nurse consultation, and randomised to the intervention group (standard written advice on skin cancer detection and sun protection, loading of an SSM 'App' onto the participant's smartphone and instructions on use including self-monitoring reminders) or control group (standard written advice alone). The primary outcomes are consultation rates for changes to a pigmented skin lesion, and the patient interval (time from first noticing a skin change to consultation). Secondary outcomes include patient sun protection behaviours, psychosocial outcomes, and measures of trial feasibility and acceptability. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: NHS ethical approval has been obtained from Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire research ethics committee (REC reference 16/EE/0248). The findings from the MelaTools SSM Trial will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications and scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISCTRN16061621.

Indexed as

MelanomaMobile ApplicationsSelf CareSmartphoneAdolescentAdultAgedClinical Trials, Phase II as TopicEnglandFemaleHumansLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle AgedMulticenter Studies as TopicPrimary Health Caremelanomaprimary carerandomised controlled trialrisk-stratifiedskin cancer

Identifiers

PMID29187412
PMCPMC5719271

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.