ArticleThe British journal of dermatology2022
Are patients benefiting from participation in the German skin cancer screening programme? A large cohort study based on administrative data.
Article in The British journal of dermatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Impact of Dermatologic Screening and Methods on Breslow Thickness in Melanoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Cancers · 2026Article
- Melanoma Severity at Presentation and Prior Skin Cancer Screening: A Survey Study of Surgical Oncology Patients.Journal of skin cancer · 2026Article
- Review
- Evaluation of skin cancer screening in Germany - a Microsimulation.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Evaluating the Frequency of Mole Checks by a Dermatologist and Correlated Variables in a Global Survey across 17 Countries: HELIOS Project.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2024Article
- Article
- In Reply.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2023Article
- Positive Effect on Prognostic Factors.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2023Article
- Opportunities to inform German residents about the possibility of skin cancer screening and to inform stakeholders to take appropriate actions: A qualitative approach.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Advances in Early Detection of Melanoma and the Future of At-Home Testing.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- The effect of screening on melanoma incidence and biopsy rates.The British journal of dermatology · 2022Article
- One-year follow-up healthcare costs of patients diagnosed with skin cancer in Germany: a claims data analysis.BMC health services research · 2022Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe German programme for skin cancer screening was established in 2008 with the aim of reducing skin cancer mortality. However, the effectiveness and risk-benefit ratio of the programme remain unclear.
objectivesTo compare the mortality rates of patients with melanoma who participate in a screening programme to those who do not.
methodsA retrospective cohort study, based on pseudonymized health insurance data of 1 431 327 individuals from Saxony, Germany, was conducted for the period 2010-2016. Patients with prevalent and incident melanoma were defined based on diagnosis, medical procedures and prescriptions. Patients who underwent screening and had a first diagnosis of melanoma within 2 years of screening were assigned to the intervention group. Relative survival and Cox regression were used to assess potential differences in mortality.
resultsWe identified 4552 individuals with prevalent and 2475 individuals with incident melanoma. The percentage of screening participants (n = 1801) who had locoregional (4·2% vs. 13·5%) and/or distant metastases (4·3% vs. 8·0%), or who were treated with systemic anticancer therapies (11·6% vs. 21·8%) was lower vs. nonparticipants (n = 674). Screening participants had significantly better survival rates. The unadjusted Cox model gave a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·37 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·30-0·46]. After adjusting for named confounders, the effect remained (HR 0·62, 95% CI 0·48-0·80).
conclusionsPatients who participated in the screening programme had lower mortality than those who had not undergone screening. However, these findings may result from a healthy screen bias and/or overdiagnosis associated with screening, and not from the screening itself.
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.