ArticleArchives of dermatological research2023
MMS hotspots: a cross-sectional comparison of U.S. counties with and without Mohs micrographic surgery.
Article in Archives of dermatological research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Machine learning-guided bioelectrical impedance mapping for rapid adjunctive margin assessment in Mohs surgery.npj biomedical innovations · 2026Article
- Vacuum-based specimen holder for rapid surgical specimen imaging.Biomedical optics express · 2025Article
- Frozen Section Mohs: A Hybrid Technique and One Plastic Surgeon's Experience With 1714 Consecutive Skin Cancer Removals.Annals of plastic surgery · 2025Article
- Cost disparities for outpatient dermatology visits among medicare beneficiaries in urban and rural regions of the United States.Archives of dermatological research · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Healthcare access greatly impacts skin cancer diagnosis and mortality rates. Recognition of current disparities in Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) access can assist future policy and clinical decisions to correct them. For the years 2014-2018, the CPT codes for MMS (17,311 and 17,313) were counted on a per county level across the United States per the Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicare Prescriber Database. Any county with 0 MMS CPT codes recorded were classified as "without MMS cases." MMS "hotspots" were identified as counties that possessed a high average number of MMS cases compared to the national average, while also being surrounded by counties that possessed a low average number of MMS cases compared to the national average. Three thousand eighty-four counties in the United States were analyzed; 785 (25%) counties were designated as "with MMS cases" and 2301 (75%) "without MMS cases." There were no significant differences in age, ethnicity distribution, or cost per enrollee between the two designations. 74% of counties with MMS cases were considered urban, while only 25% of those without cases were urban (p < 0.01). The median household income was markedly higher in counties with MMS cases ($71,428 vs. $58,913, p < 0.01). With respect to education, more individuals in counties with MMS cases possessed their General Education Development (GED) (89% vs. 86%, p < 0.01) or a college degree (30% vs. 19%, p < 0.01). Forty-nine counties were considered MMS "hotspots." The density of MMS procedures varies greatly based on geography, maintaining the urban-rural disparity matched by the distribution of MMS surgeons. Additionally, there remains a wide income and educational gap between counties with and without MMS. Identifying MMS hotspots may facilitate further investigation into potential surgical access disparities.
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.