Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32074257›Full record

ArticleJAMA dermatology2020

Association of Indoor Tanning Regulations With Health and Economic Outcomes in North America and Europe.

Louisa G Gordon, Astrid J Rodriguez-Acevedo, Brian Køster, Gery P Guy, Craig Sinclair, Emilie Van Deventer, Adèle C Green

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA dermatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Persisting Effects of a Social Media Campaign to Prevent Indoor Tanning: A Randomized Trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Epidemiology of Melanoma.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

7 authors.

Louisa G GordonPopulation Health Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Astrid J Rodriguez-AcevedoPopulation Health Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Brian KøsterDanish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Gery P GuyCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia.
Craig SinclairCancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Emilie Van DeventerUV Radiation Programme, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Adèle C GreenPopulation Health Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: UV radiation emissions from indoor tanning devices are carcinogenic. Regulatory actions may be associated with reduced exposure of UV radiation at a population level. Objective: To estimate the long-term health and economic consequences of banning indoor tanning devices or prohibiting their use by minors only in North America and Europe compared with ongoing current levels of use. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic analysis modeled data for individuals 12 to 35 years old in North America and Europe, who commonly engage in indoor tanning. A Markov cohort model was used with outcomes projected during the cohort's remaining life-years. Models were populated by extracting data from high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses, epidemiologic reports, and cancer registrations. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were numbers of melanomas and deaths from melanoma, numbers of keratinocyte carcinomas, life-years, and health care and productivity costs. Extensive sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the stability of results. Results: In an estimated population of 110 932 523 in the United States and Canada and 141 970 492 in Europe, for the next generation of youths and young adults during their remaining lifespans, regulatory actions that ban indoor tanning devices could be expected to gain 423 000 life-years, avert 240 000 melanomas (-8.2%), and avert 7.3 million keratinocyte carcinomas (-7.8%) in North America and gain 460 000 life-years, avert 204 000 melanomas (-4.9%), and avert 2.4 million keratinocyte carcinomas (-4.4%) in Europe compared with ongoing current levels of use. Economic cost savings of US $31.1 billion in North America and €21.1 billion (US $15.9 billion) in Europe could occur. Skin cancers averted and cost savings after prohibiting indoor tanning by minors may be associated with one-third of the corresponding benefits of a total ban. Conclusions and Relevance: Banning indoor tanning may be associated with reduced skin cancer burden and health care costs. Corresponding gains from prohibiting indoor tanning by minors only may be smaller.

Indexed as

Models, EconomicOutcome Assessment, Health CareAdolescentAdultCanadaChildEuropeHealth Care CostsHumansMarkov ChainsMelanomaSkin NeoplasmsSunbathingUltraviolet RaysUnited StatesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32074257
PMCPMC7042819

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.