Trial reportActa dermato-venereologica2025
Patient Preferences and Cosmetic Outcomes Following Destructive Treatments for Non-facial Basal Cell Carcinoma: A Mixed Methods Study.
Trial report in Acta dermato-venereologica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The high prevalence of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) entails a substantial burden on healthcare systems. Interest in non-surgical treatment methods for low-risk BCCs, including destructive treatments, is increasing. Dermatologists often highlight suboptimal cosmetic outcomes as drawbacks of destructive treatments, also for non-facial lesions. Patient perspectives regarding scarring and cosmetic outcomes in relation to other relevant factors are largely unknown, yet important to consider in shared decision-making when choosing treatment. This study investigates patient perceptions of scarring following destructive treatments and explores important factors in treatment decisions for non-facial BCCs. Through a mixed-methods design, cosmetic outcomes, patient satisfaction, scarring concerns, and treatment preferences were evaluated within an ongoing randomized clinical trial on destructive treatments for low-risk BCCs. Overall, 157 patients with 425 non-facial scars were assessed. Most patients were not concerned about scar appearance, highlighting a discrepancy compared with dermatologists' general concerns regarding inferior cosmetic outcome. Instead, when opting for specific treatments, patients listed clearance rates as the most important factor, followed by convenience and time consumption. We believe the results are important both in the context of patient-centred care and in "choosing wisely" when deciding between BCC treatments.
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.