Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32596742›Full record

ArticleArchives of dermatological research2021

Reliable test of clinicians' mastery in skin cancer diagnostics.

Niels Kvorning Ternov, T Vestergaard, L Rosenkrantz Hölmich, K Karmisholt, A L Wagenblast, H Klyver, M Hald, L Schøllhammer, L Konge, A H Chakera

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of dermatological research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT05004792 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Correlation Between Online Case-based Training of Pathologists in Dermoscopic Images and Diagnostic Accuracy in Histopathological Interpretation of Skin Lesions Suspicious of Melanoma

TypeinterventionalSponsorHerlev HospitalRan2026 to 2027Enrolled258ConditionsMelanoma, Pigmented LesionsArmsDermLoop Learn
NCT05712551 completednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Diagnostic Agreement Among Expert Dermatopathologists on Skin Lesions Clinically Suspicious of Melanoma

TypeobservationalSponsorHerlev HospitalRan2023 to 2024Enrolled4ConditionsMelanoma (Skin), Pigmented Lesions
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

10 authors.

Niels Kvorning TernovDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, Herlev, 2730, Copenhagen, Denmark. Niels.kvorning.ternov@regionh.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8034-6727
T VestergaardDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy Centre, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
L Rosenkrantz HölmichDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, Herlev, 2730, Copenhagen, Denmark.
K KarmisholtDepartment of Dermatology, Bispebjerg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
A L WagenblastDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Breast Surgery and Burns Treatment, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
H KlyverDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Breast Surgery and Burns Treatment, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
M HaldDepartment of Dermatology, Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
L SchøllhammerDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
L KongeCopenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation, Copenhagen, Denmark.
A H ChakeraDepartment of Plastic Surgery, Herlev and Gentofte University Hospital, Herlev Ringvej 75, Herlev, 2730, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

Region Hovedstaden P-2019-1-02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Differentiating between benign and malignant skin lesions can be very difficult and should only be done by sufficiently trained and skilled clinicians. To our knowledge there are no validated tests for reliable assessments of clinicians' ability to perform skin cancer diagnostics. To develop and gather validity evidence for a test in skin cancer diagnostics, a multiple-choice questionnaire (MCQ) was developed based on informal interviews with seven content experts from five skin cancer centers in Denmark. Validity evidence for the test was gathered from May until July 2019 using Messick's validity framework (content, response process, internal structure, relationship to other variables and consequences). Item content was revised through a Delphi-like review process and then piloted on 36 medical students and 136 doctors using a standardized response process. Results enabled an analysis of the internal structure and relationship to other variables of the test. Finally, the contrasting groups method was used to investigate the test's consequences (pass-fail standard). The initial 90-item MCQ was reduced to 40 items during the Delphi-like review process. Item analysis revealed that 25 of the 40 selected items were level I-III quality items with a high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.83) and highly significant (P ≤ 0.0001) differences in test scores between participants with different occupations or levels of experience. A pass-fail standard of 12 (48%) correct answers was established using the contrasting groups' method. The skin cancer diagnostics MCQ developed in this study can be used for reliable assessments of clinicians' competencies.

Indexed as

Surveys and QuestionnairesClinical CompetenceDermatologistsDiagnosis, DifferentialGeneral PractitionersHumansReproducibility of ResultsSkinSkin NeoplasmsStudents, MedicalSurgeonsContinuous medical educationMelanomaNeviSkin cancer

Identifiers

PMID32596742

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.