ArticleBMJ open2025
Characterising melanoma diagnostic pathways for patients in routine practice using administrative health data in Ontario, Canada: a population-based study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo characterise diagnostic pathways for patients with melanoma in routine practice and compare patient, disease and diagnostic interval (DI) characteristics across pathways.
designDescriptive cross-sectional study using administrative health data.
settingPopulation-based study in Ontario, Canada.
participantsPatients with melanoma diagnosed from 2007 to 2019.
main outcome measuresWe used latent class cluster analysis to create clusters of patients with similar diagnostic experiences to characterise diagnostic pathways in routine practice. Indicator variables characterised the patient's keratinocyte carcinoma and dermatologist history, presentation pattern, procedure types, number of visits and procedures, and the activity on the diagnosis date. χ
resultsThere were 33 371 patients diagnosed with melanoma from 2007 to 2019. We identified four diagnostic pathways: 'primary care only' (n=6107), 'referred to specialist with immediate action' (n=8987), 'multiple visits and procedures in specialist care' (n=11 893) and 'specialist care only' (n=6384). Patient, disease and DI characteristics varied across pathways. Pathway types varied regionally. A higher proportion in the 'primary care only' pathway lived in rural areas whereas a higher proportion in the 'referred to specialist for immediate action' and the 'specialist care only' pathways lived in major urban centres. Across pathways, the median DI varied from 1 to 67 days, the median primary care subinterval varied from 1 to 30 days and the median specialist care subinterval varied from 1 to 25 days. Patients in the 'primary care only' pathway experienced the shortest DIs, and patients in the 'multiple visits and procedures in specialist care' pathway experienced the longest DIs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We identified four melanoma diagnostic pathways. The shortest DI, the 'primary care only' pathway, highlights the important role of primary care and the need to reduce the wait for specialists. Diagnostic processes varied across geographical locations. Future research should address reasons for these differences, including whether they are associated with inefficient or inappropriate care.
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.