ArticleThe British journal of dermatology2019
Healthcare utilization and management of actinic keratosis in primary and secondary care: a complementary database analysis.
Article in The British journal of dermatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Role of General Practitioners in Actinic Keratosis Management in Europe: A Dermato-Oncologists Initiative.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Real-World Data on Characteristics and Management of Patients with Actinic Keratosis: A Cancer Center Experience.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Review
- Needs and challenges among general practitioners in the management of actinic keratosis: a qualitative study.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Innovation in Actinic Keratosis Assessment: Artificial Intelligence-Based Approach to LC-OCT PRO Score Evaluation.Cancers · 2023Article
- Measuring the quality of skin cancer management in primary care: A scoping review.The Australasian journal of dermatology · 2023Article
- Validation of actinic keratosis diagnosis and treatment codes among veterans living with HIV.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2022Article
- A Review of Existing Therapies for Actinic Keratosis: Current Status and Future Directions.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2022Review
- Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation and interactions with climate change: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, update 2019.Photochemical & photobiological sciences : Official journal of the European Photochemistry Association and the European Society for Photobiology · 2020Review
- Insight into the management of actinic keratosis: a qualitative interview study among general practitioners and dermatologists.The British journal of dermatology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe high prevalence of actinic keratosis (AK) requires the optimal use of healthcare resources.
objectivesTo gain insight in to the healthcare utilization of people with AK in a population-based cohort, and the management of AK in a primary and secondary care setting.
methodsA retrospective cohort study using three complementary data sources was conducted to describe the use of care, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients with AK in the Netherlands. Data sources consisted of a population-based cohort study (Rotterdam Study), routine general practitioner (GP) records (Integrated Primary Care Information) and nationwide claims data (DRG Information System).
resultsIn the population-based cohort (Rotterdam Study), 69% (918 of 1322) of participants diagnosed with AK during a skin-screening visit had no previous AK-related visit in their GP record. This proportion was 50% for participants with extensive AK (i.e. ≥ 10 AKs; n = 270). Cryotherapy was the most used AK treatment by both GPs (78%) and dermatologists (41-56%). Topical agents were the second most used treatment by dermatologists (13-21%) but were rarely applied in primary care (2%). During the first AK-related GP visit, 31% (171 of 554) were referred to a dermatologist, and the likelihood of being referred was comparable between low- and high-risk patients, which is inconsistent with the Dutch general practitioner guidelines for 'suspicious skin lesions' from 2017. Annually, 40 000 new claims representing 13% of all dermatology claims were labelled as cutaneous premalignancy. Extensive follow-up rates (56%) in secondary care were registered, while only 18% received a claim for a subsequent cutaneous malignancy in 5 years.
conclusionsAK management seems to diverge from guidelines in both primary and secondary care. Underutilization of field treatments, inappropriate treatments and high referral rates without proper risk stratification in primary care, combined with extensive follow-up in secondary care result in the inefficient use of healthcare resources and overburdening in secondary care. Efforts directed to better risk differentiation and guideline adherence may prove useful in increasing the efficiency in AK management. What's already known about this topic? The prevalence of actinic keratosis (AK) is high and, in particular, multiple AKs are a strong skin cancer predictor. The high prevalence of AK requires optimal use of healthcare resources. Nevertheless, (population based) AK healthcare utilization and management data are very rare. What does this study add? Although AK-related care already consumes substantial resources, about 70% of the AK population has never received care. Primary care AK management demonstrated underutilization of topical therapies and high referral rates without proper risk stratification, while in secondary care the extensive follow-up schedules were applied. This inefficient use of healthcare resources highlights the need for better harmonization and risk stratification to increase the efficiency of AK 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.