ArticleJournal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV2025
The integration of dermatology experts into primary care to assess and treat patients with skin lesions is cost-effective: A quasi-experimental study.
Article in Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The integration of dermatology experts into primary care to assess and treat patients with skin lesions is cost-effective: A quasi-experimental study.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2025Article
- The Role of Tyrosine Kinase in Beauty and Skincare: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Review
- Malignant fungating wounds assessment in palliative care: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThe management of patients with skin changes can be challenging in primary healthcare; general practitioners (GPs) often lack the expertise to make accurate assessments and treatment decisions. The standard care pathway for skin changes can result in extended treatment times and costs.
objectivesThis study was designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of integrating a dermatologist into the primary care setting to assess and treat patients with skin disorders. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for each malignant or pre-malignant skin disease found and treated. The secondary outcomes included ICER for any treated skin finding, number needed to excise to find malignant or pre-malignant skin disease, number of hospital referrals required and changes in quality of life (QoL) in the presence and absence of the integration.
methodsThis was a quasi-experimental cohort study conducted at three primary healthcare centres in Finland. In the two intervention centres, patients with skin findings visited a dermatologist; in the control centre they visited a GP. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). QoL was assessed with the PROMIS v1.2, calculative EQ-5D-3L and PROMIS Anxiety 4a instruments.
resultsIn total, 186 integration and 176 control patients were included. For an additional patient treated for a (pre-)malignant skin disease, the ICER was €852 lower and with any skin disease €381 lower in the integration group than with standard care. Fewer biopsies were required for each malignant or pre-malignant skin disease in the integration group compared to the control group (2.1 and 6.5 per patient; p < 0.001) and lower proportion of patients were referred to hospital (8.1 vs. 17.1%, p < 0.001). Patient QoL did not differ between groups.
conclusionsThe integration of dermatological expertise into primary care settings is cost-effective and can streamline the management of patients with skin conditions without worsening their QoL.
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.