Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29490373›Full record

ArticleJAMA dermatology2018

Patient Preferences for Follow-up After Recent Excision of a Localized Melanoma.

Wei-Yin Lim, Rachael L Morton, Robin M Turner, Marisa C Jenkins, Pascale Guitera, Les Irwig, Angela C Webster, Mbathio Dieng, Robyn P M Saw, Donald Low and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA dermatology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Adapting to the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey of UK and European hand surgery units.Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

12 authors.

Wei-Yin LimClinical Research Centre Perak, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Ipoh, Perak, Malaysia.
Rachael L MortonNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Robin M TurnerSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Marisa C JenkinsSchool of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Pascale GuiteraMelanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Les IrwigSchool of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Angela C WebsterSchool of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Mbathio DiengSchool of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Robyn P M SawMelanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Donald LowCancer Voices NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Cynthia LowCancer Voices NSW, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Katy J L BellSchool of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The standard model of follow-up posttreatment of localized melanoma relies on clinician detection of recurrent or new melanoma, through routinely scheduled clinics (clinician-led surveillance). An alternative model is to increase reliance on patient detection of melanoma, with fewer scheduled visits and increased support for patients' skin self-examination (SSE) (eg, using smartphone apps to instruct, prompt and record SSE, and facilitate teledermatology; patient-led surveillance). Objective: To determine the proportion of adults treated for localized melanoma who prefer the standard scheduled visit frequency (as per Australian guideline recommendations) or fewer scheduled visits (adapted from the Melanoma Follow-up [MELFO] study of reduced follow-up). Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used a telephone interview for surveillance following excision of localized melanoma at an Australian specialist center. We invited a random sample of 400 patients who had completed treatment for localized melanoma in 2014 to participate. They were asked about their preferences for scheduled follow-up, and experience of follow-up in the past 12 months. Those with a recurrent or new primary melanoma diagnosed by the time of interview (0.8-1.7 years since first diagnosis) were asked about how it was first detected and treated. SSE practices were also assessed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion preferring standard vs fewer scheduled clinic visits, median delay between detection and treatment of recurrent or new primary melanoma, and SSE practices. Results: Of the 262 people who agreed to be interviewed, the mean (SD) age was 64.3 (14.3) years, and 93 (36%) were women. Among the 230 people who did not have a recurrent or new primary melanoma, 149 vs 81 preferred the standard vs fewer scheduled clinic visits option (70% vs 30% after adjusting for sampling frame). Factors independently associated with preferring fewer visits were a higher disease stage, melanoma on a limb, living with others, not having private health insurance, and seeing a specialist for another chronic condition. The median delay between first detection and treatment of recurrent or new primary melanoma was 7 and 3 weeks, respectively. Only 8% missed a scheduled visit, while 40% did not perform SSE or did so at greater than 3-month intervals. Conclusions and Relevance: Some patients with melanoma may prefer fewer scheduled visits, if they are supported to do SSE and there is rapid clinical review of anything causing concern (patient-led surveillance).

Indexed as

Office VisitsPatient PreferenceSelf-ExaminationAftercareAgedFemaleHumansMaleMelanomaMiddle AgedMobile ApplicationsNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasms, Second PrimaryNeoplasm StagingSkin NeoplasmsSmartphone

Identifiers

PMID29490373
PMCPMC5876843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.