Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31434767›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2019

Dermoscopy for melanoma detection and triage in primary care: a systematic review.

O T Jones, L C Jurascheck, M A van Melle, S Hickman, N P Burrows, P N Hall, J Emery, F M Walter

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Comparison of Three Deep Learning Models in Accurate Classification of 770 Dermoscopy Skin Lesion Images.AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

O T JonesDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK otj24@medschl.cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2783-9431
L C JurascheckUniversity of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK.
M A van MelleDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
S HickmanNorfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK.
N P BurrowsAddenbrooke's Hospital Department of Dermatology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
P N HallAddenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
J EmeryDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5274-6336
F M WalterDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Cancer Research UK C8640/A23385Department of Health NIHR-CS-012-030
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMost skin lesions first present in primary care, where distinguishing rare melanomas from benign lesions can be challenging. Dermoscopy improves diagnostic accuracy among specialists and is promoted for use by primary care physicians (PCPs). However, when used by untrained clinicians, accuracy may be no better than visual inspection. This study aimed to undertake a systematic review of literature reporting use of dermoscopy to triage suspicious skin lesions in primary care settings, and challenges for implementation.

designA systematic literature review and narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and SCOPUS bibliographic databases from 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2017, without language restrictions. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies including assessment of dermoscopy accuracy, acceptability to patients and PCPs, training requirements, and cost-effectiveness of dermoscopy modes in primary care, including trials, diagnostic accuracy and acceptability studies.

results23 studies met the review criteria, representing 49 769 lesions and 3708 PCPs, all from high-income countries. There was a paucity of studies set truly in primary care and the outcomes measured were diverse. The heterogeneity therefore made meta-analysis unfeasible; the data were synthesised through narrative review. Dermoscopy, with appropriate training, was associated with improved diagnostic accuracy for melanoma and benign lesions, and reduced unnecessary excisions and referrals. Teledermoscopy-based referral systems improved triage accuracy. Only three studies examined cost-effectiveness; hence, there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions. Costs, training and time requirements were considered important implementation barriers. Patient satisfaction was seldom assessed. Computer-aided dermoscopy and other technological advances have not yet been tested in primary care.

conclusionsDermoscopy could help PCPs triage suspicious lesions for biopsy, urgent referral or reassurance. However, it will be important to establish further evidence on minimum training requirements to reach competence, as well as the cost-effectiveness and patient acceptability of implementing dermoscopy in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018091395.

Indexed as

BiopsyDermoscopyHumansMelanomaPrimary Health CareReproducibility of ResultsSkin NeoplasmsTriagedermoscopymelanomaprimary careskin cancersystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31434767
PMCPMC6707687

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.