ReviewMelanoma management2025
Bridging gaps throughout a patient's journey with melanoma: a systematic review.
Review in Melanoma management, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMelanoma is one of the most fatal skin cancers, with rising incidence and mortality worldwide. From diagnosis to treatment, patient experiences often involve anxiety, symptom burden, and limited access to information which profoundly impacts health outcomes.
objectiveThis systematic review aims to identify and analyze major barriers melanoma patients face throughout their healthcare journey.
methodsStudies were identified from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library, supplemented by manual hand-searching. Eligible studies focused on the experiences of melanoma patients, addressed knowledge gaps and barriers to care throughout the patient journey, and were published in English between 2013 and 2023. Screening and extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria.
resultsOut of 2,257 screened articles, 183 met the inclusion criteria. Studies were categorized into four major themes: intersectionality, treatment, diagnosis/prognosis, and patient/societal burden. Commonly explored subcategories included self-examination, risk factors, and drug efficacy.
conclusionsMelanoma patients experience significant gaps throughout their healthcare journey. Identifying areas of improvement in current practices is the first step toward developing targeted solutions that improve the patient experience and quality of life.
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.