Trial reportJournal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV2026
Passive versus active educational interventions for nevus and melanoma classification: A randomized controlled study.
Trial report in Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV, 2026. 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.
- Passive versus active educational interventions for nevus and melanoma classification: A randomized controlled study.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026Trial
- Towards evidence-based policy in melanoma screening and skin self-examination education.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026Article
- High-resolution optical coherence tomography for screening ocular surface tumors: Historical markers and future directions.World journal of clinical cases · 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundsPatients or family members first notice around 50% of primary melanoma lesions. Targeted educational campaigns for non-medical individuals improve melanoma detection rates, but the most effective initiatives are unclear.
objectivesTo compare the efficacy of passive versus active intervention for non-medical individuals in classifying nevi and melanomas.
methodsA multicentric randomized controlled study randomly assigned subjects to receive active intervention (a dermatologist explaining basic rules for melanoma detection) or passive intervention (subject independently reading the basic rules). Subjects were asked to classify 60 clinical photos of nevi and melanomas as 'at risk' of malignancy and nominated the rule(s) they applied at 3 time points-before (T0), immediately following (T1), and 30 ± 2 days after (T2) the educational intervention.
resultsWe randomized 364 patients. We included in the analysis 336 subjects (female 61.3%, 156 in the passive and 180 in the active intervention group) with a mean age of 44.5 years. Overall, detection rates of lesions 'at risk' improved from 71.2% (T0) to 86.4% (T1). At T2, detection rates were significantly higher after active intervention (83.7% vs. 86.8%, p = 0.017). Although an overall improvement was described after both interventions, rates of correct responses according to lesion-specific features were significantly higher in the active intervention group for lesions that met ugly duckling (UD) rule criteria at T1 and both rules (ABCDE and UD rules) criteria at T2. Correct (full or partial) rule applications were observed in 80% at T1 (40.2% and 38.4%, respectively) and at T2 (40.4% and 37.8%, respectively), with significantly higher correct rule application in the active group at T1 (p = 0.001) and T2 (p = 0.03).
conclusionsActive educational intervention is more effective than passive education in improving nevi and melanomas classification and correct rule application in non-medical individuals, with stable performance observed over time.
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.