ArticleCureus2021
Prevalence of Misrepresentation of Nonphysician Clinicians at Dermatology Clinics.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo evaluate the use of inaccurate terminology used by dermatology practices to describe the training and qualifications of their nonphysician clinicians (NPCs) when new patients are booking appointments.
methodsClinics were randomly selected and called to determine the first available appointment for a new patient with a new and changing mole. If the receptionist confirmed the first-offered appointment was with an NPC, the encounter was included in this study. If receptionists used inaccurate terminology to describe the NPCs and their qualifications, this instance was recorded along with the specific language that they used.
resultsA total of 344 unique dermatology clinics were contacted on February 27, 2020, in 25 states. Phone calls at 128 clinics (37.2%) met our inclusion criterion. Inaccurate language was used to describe NPCs at 23 (18%) unique clinic locations across 12 states, with "dermatologist," "doctor," "physician," and "board-certified" being used to describe NPCs as the most common inaccurate terms.
conclusionThese findings demonstrate that front office staff at dermatology clinics use inaccurate and potentially misleading terminology to refer to NPCs working in their clinics. While we cannot establish whether this is intentional or due to a lack of training, additional focus should be placed on accurately representing provider qualifications to patients.
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.