Observational studyBMJ open2019
High-risk basal cell carcinoma excision in primary care: a retrospective observational study of compliance with NICE guidance.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality measures in primary care skin cancer management: a qualitative study of the views of key informants.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Measuring the quality of skin cancer management in primary care: A scoping review.The Australasian journal of dermatology · 2023Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess compliance with 2010 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on cancer services relating to the management of basal cell carcinomas (BCC) in the community, where except in specific circumstances it is recommended that only low-risk BCCs should be excised routinely. DESIGN AND
settingA retrospective observational study of the histopathology reports of BCC excisions received from primary care in two district general hospitals in the South of England. One hundred consecutive BCC excisions were analysed from each hospital. OUTCOME MEASURES: The numbers of high-risk BCCs excised in primary care according to histological subtype, anatomical site and age and if these excisions were compliant with NICE 2010 guidance. Completeness of excision and mention of BCC on histology request were secondary outcomes.
resultsHistologically high-risk subtypes were present in 32% (64/200) of BCCs excised in the community. Only 17/64 were excised by general practitioners (GPs) who were accredited to do so. Non-compliance regarding anatomical site occurred in 16% of samples; only one was non-compliant regarding patient age. There was a high overall rate of complete excision (94.5%) with variation in presence of the term BCC on histology request forms.
conclusionsNICE 2010 guidance relating to BCC excision in primary care was not followed in a considerable number of cases. Compliance with NICE 2010 guidance depends on the ability to recognise high-risk BCCs clinically and manage appropriately. It also shows that despite close supervision by secondary care, there are still failures of compliance.GP training in identification of subtypes of BCC might be improved, as well as an increase in numbers of GPs accredited to carry out high-risk BCC excisions. Difficulty in diagnosing high-risk histological subtypes of BCC preoperatively should be considered in any future revision of NICE guidance.
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.