ReviewCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2024
A scoping review: Screening questionnaires for identifying tanning addiction.
Review in Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods, 2024. 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.
- A scoping review: Screening questionnaires for identifying tanning addiction.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Review
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
Introduction: There is a growing body of evidence that ultraviolet (UV) tanning, whether practiced in indoor tanning salons or outdoors in the sun, is not only linked to detrimental health outcomes but is also addictive through both psychological and physiological mechanisms. In clinical practice, it can be challenging to determine which patients will continue tanning despite being at high risk for developing skin cancer. Our study seeks to identify all available screening questionnaires for tanning addiction that could be used in clinical practice and report on published measures of validity for each screening questionnaire. Methods: An exhaustive literature search of EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus was performed using search criteria including the concepts "UV" and "Addiction." The most recent search was performed in March 2024 and included all articles from database inception to the time of the search. Studies were included if they reported on screening questionnaires for UV addiction. Articles were excluded from the study if they did not report primary data or did not report on measures of questionnaire validity. Methodology was created using best practices for scoping reviews. Results: After identifying 171 articles, 106 articles underwent full-text review, and 26 were included in data extraction. We identified nine questionnaires for tanning addiction, with the modified Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye-opener (mCAGE), and modified Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (mDSM) being most frequently reported on, and the Behavioral Addiction Indoor Tanning Screener (BAITS) being the most promising for future use. Conclusions: This information should be used to choose questionnaires to be studied against a "gold-standard" of a panel of psychologists. After defining accuracy of diagnostic tests, studies can be designed to examine interventions for treating tanning addiction, so at-risk patients can receive specialized therapy, reducing the overall burden of skin cancers.
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.