Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40771446›Full record

ArticleSkin appendage disorders2025

Current Practices of Subspecialty Nail Clinics: Results of a Survey of the Members of the Council for Nail Disorders.

Safinaz Soliman, Phoebe Rich, Molly A Hinshaw

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Skin appendage disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Safinaz SolimanDepartment of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
Phoebe RichOregon Dermatology and Research Center, Portland, OR, USA.
Molly A HinshawDepartment of Dermatology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Knowledge of the structure and function of existing nail clinics remains limited. Sharing this knowledge from nail experts who run these clinics can readily support newly trained nail clinicians in setting up their nail clinics. Method: We surveyed members of the Council for Nail Disorders (CND) to learn about the structure and practices of their nail clinics. Of the practicing CND members in any membership class, we analyzed responses from those who have nail clinics. Results: Of the 79 practicing CND members, 38 responded (48.1% response rate), of whom 25 (65.8%) had a nail clinic. Analysis of these 25 responses revealed that 52% of nail clinics were relatively new (operating <5 years). The majority (72%) were in academic settings. Medical trainees were being taught in 64% of clinics. Nail clinics were directed by either one (64%) or multiple clinicians. All experts reported using clinical photographs in their routine care for nail patients, and 96% used dermoscopy. Additionally, 96% performed punch and tangential shave biopsies, and 88% performed matrixectomy. Access to a pathologist(s) with nail expertise was available in 84% of clinics. Conclusion: Our findings characterize the current practices of nail clinics directed by CND members, serving as a guide for clinicians looking to establish their own.

Indexed as

Dermatology residency trainingNail clinicNail disordersSubspeciality clinicsSubspeciality nail clinic

Identifiers

PMID40771446
PMCPMC12324721

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.