ArticleSkin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI)2022
A multinational survey characterizing the use of surgical magnifying loupes in dermatological surgery.
Article in Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A multinational survey characterizing the use of surgical magnifying loupes in dermatological surgery.Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of surgical loupes has not been well-documented in dermatological surgery.
objectivesAn online questionnaire was developed to characterize the use of loupes in dermatological surgery.
methodsThe questionnaire was circulated to the memberships of the British Society of Dermatological Surgery, the European Society of Micrographic Surgery, and the Australasian College of Dermatologists. Responses were analyzed with a mixed methods approach using quantitative data analysis and inductive content analysis.
resultsOne-hundred twenty-five valid responses were received from 20 nations. Most respondents were from England (40%; 50/125), Australia (16%; 20/125), and the Netherlands (14.4%; 18/125). Overall, 71.2% (89/125) of respondents were consultants/Facharzt/attending. Furthermore, 55.2% (69/125) of respondents were Mohs surgeons. In dermatological surgery 38.4% (48/125) of respondents used surgical loupes routinely. The mode magnification level for loupes was 2.5× (67.5%; 27/40), with 3× second place (12.5%; 5/40). Exactly half (20/40) used through-the-lens style loupes and 40% (16/40) used flip-up-loupes. Inductive content analysis of the 51 free-text responses from nonloupe users uncovered several deterring factor themes, including expense (18/51), can manage without/don't need (14/51), and narrow field of view a(11/51), and uncomfortable/too heavy (9/51).
conclusionsThis is the first time the use of surgical loupes in dermatological surgery has been internationally characterized.
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.