ArticleClinical and experimental dermatology2022
A qualitative review of misinformation and conspiracy theories in skin cancer.
Article in Clinical and experimental dermatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sunscreen is overwhelmingly promoted on TikTok, but content with misinformation exhibits proportionally high levels of audience interaction.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Article
- AI and Digital Tools in Dermatology: Addressing Access and Misinformation.JMIR dermatology · 2026Review
- Assessing the readability of dermatological patient information leaflets generated by ChatGPT-4 and its associated plugins.Skin health and disease · 2025Article
- Prioritising Key Concepts for informed health choices in cancer: An evidence-based online educational programme.PEC innovation · 2024Article
- Beliefs, behaviours, and attitudes towards tanning and melanoma in the Irish population.Skin health and disease · 2024Article
- Cancer: A model topic for misinformation researchers.Current opinion in psychology · 2024Review
- Combating Misinformation in Dermatology.Dermatology practical & conceptual · 2023Review
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
Misinformation on diseases and treatments is a worldwide threat and can lead to worse outcomes for patients with skin cancer. The aim of this study was to qualitatively assess the content of online misinformation related to skin cancer. Searches were performed via PubMed and Google using the terms 'skin cancer' OR 'melanoma' OR 'non-melanoma skin cancer' OR 'SCC' OR 'BCC' AND 'misinformation' OR 'disinformation' OR 'conspiracy theories'. The most common themes of misinformation related to skin cancer included assertions of the 'dangers' of using sunscreen and alternative sunscreen practices; promotion of tanning and Melanotan (an unlicensed and untested form of α-melanocyte-stimulating hormone) as safe practices; claims that risk of skin cancer are limited to people who are older or have fair skin; and assertions of alternative 'causes' and alternative 'cures' for skin cancer. Sunscreen was particularly vilified as being an ineffective prophylactic measure and a cause of skin cancer. Dermatologists should be aware of misinformation available online relating to skin cancer, and refute and rebut misleading health information.
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.