Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33913002›Full record

SynthesisArchives of dermatological research2022

A systematic review and synthesis of qualitative and quantitative studies evaluating provider, patient, and health care system-related barriers to diagnostic skin cancer examinations.

Maleka Najmi, Ashley E Brown, Sarah R Harrington, David Farris, Sarah Sepulveda, Kelly C Nelson

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of dermatological research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Expert Consensus Statement on Proficiency Standards for Dermoscopy Education in Primary Care.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

6 authors.

Maleka NajmiPaul L. Foster School of Medicine, Texas Tech Health Sciences Center El Paso, El Paso, TX, US.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3833-5936
Ashley E BrownDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center At Houston, Houston, TX, US.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3458-1013
Sarah R HarringtonDavidson College, Davidson, NC, US.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9224-9270
David FarrisResearch Medical Library, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, US.
Sarah SepulvedaDepartment of Family Medicine, Texas Tech Health Sciences Center El Paso, El Paso, TX, US.
Kelly C NelsonDepartment of Dermatology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, 1400 Pressler Street, Unit 1452, Houston, TX, 77030, US. KCNelson1@mdanderson.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5042-7366

Funding

University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center NCI R25E grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Melanoma-screening examinations support early diagnosis, yet there is a national shortage of dermatologists and most at-risk patients lack access to dermatologic care. Primary care physicians (PCPs) in the United States often bridge these access gaps, and thus, play a critical role in the early detection of melanoma. However, most PCPs do not offer skin examinations. We conducted a systematic review and searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 1946 to July 2019 to identify barriers for skin screening by providers, patients, and health systems following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Of 650 abstracts initially identified, 111 publications were included for full-text review and 48 studies met the inclusion criteria. Lack of dermatologic training (89.4%), time constraints (70%), and competing comorbidities (51%) are the most common barriers reported by PCPs. Low perceived risk (69%), long delays in appointment (46%), and lack of knowledge about melanoma (34.8%) are most frequently reported patient barriers. Qualitative reported barriers for health system are lack of public awareness, social prejudice leading to tanning booth usage, public surveillance programs requiring intensive resources, and widespread ABCD evaluation causing delays in seeking medical attention for melanomas. Numerous barriers remain that prevent the implementation of skin screening practices in clinical practice. A multi-faceted combination of efforts is essential for the execution of acceptable and effective skin cancer-screening practices, thus, increasing early diagnosis and lowering mortality rates and burden of disease for melanoma.

Indexed as

MelanomaSkin NeoplasmsDelivery of Health CareEarly Detection of CancerHealth PersonnelHumansUnited StatesBarriers to skin screeningEarly detectionMelanoma screeningSkin cancer screeningWhole-body skin examination

Identifiers

PMID33913002

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.