ArticleJAMA dermatology2020
Association of Indoor Tanning Regulations With Health and Economic Outcomes in North America and Europe.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Cost-Effectiveness of Primary Prevention Interventions for Skin Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review.Applied health economics and health policy · 2024Pooled it
- Reasons for using indoor tanning devices: A systematic review of qualitative evidence.British journal of health psychology · 2023Pooled it
- 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 · 2022Trial
- Geographic and population disparities in cutaneous melanoma in the United States: state-level trends and national population-level analyses.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Economic Evaluation of Two Scalability Strategies for Nationwide Dissemination of an Occupational Sun Safety Intervention in a Randomized Trial.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2025Article
- Bills to Restrict Access to and Harm From Indoor Tanning Facilities in US State Legislatures, 1992‒2023.American journal of public health · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Driven Skin Aging Simulation as a Novel Skin Cancer Prevention.Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Observational
- Global, regional, and national burden of premenopausal and postmenopausal malignant melanoma from 1990 to 2021: a comprehensive cross-sectional analysis.American journal of cancer research · 2025Article
- Global, regional, national prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life-years of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma and trend analysis from 1990 to 2021 and prediction to 2045.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- An Epidemiological Update on Indoor Tanning and the Risk of Skin Cancers.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2022Review
- Cost-effectiveness of a policy-based intervention to reduce melanoma and other skin cancers associated with indoor tanning.The British journal of dermatology · 2022Article
- Epidemiology of Melanoma.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- A Call to Action to Eliminate Indoor Tanning: Focus on Policy.JAMA dermatology · 2021Article
- Sunbed Use among 11- to 17-Year-Olds and Estimated Number of Commercial Sunbeds in England with Implications for a 'Buy-Back' Scheme.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Association Between State Indoor Tanning Legislation and Google Search Trends Data in the United States From 2006 to 2019: Time-Series Analysis.JMIR dermatology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.