ArticleJEADV clinical practice2024
Full-body skin examination in screening for cutaneous malignancy: A focus on concealed sites and the practices of international dermatologists.
Article in JEADV clinical practice, 2024. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Full-body skin examination (FSE) is fundamental to the diagnosis of cutaneous malignancy but may not always include concealed site examination (CSE). Objectives: To determine the approach of international dermatologists to CSE during FSE and examine influencing factors, barriers and attitudes toward CSE. Methods: Members of the International Dermoscopy Society were surveyed using an online 12-question survey disseminated via email. Results: There were 706 completed responses among 1249 unique clicks to the survey, representing a completion rate of 56.5%. Fifty-four percent of respondents reported always examining the breasts, while 52.8%, 18.8%, and 11.8% always examined the scalp, oral, and anogenital mucosa, respectively. The most frequent reason for examining concealed sites was patient concern, whilst common reasons for not examining concealed sites included low incidence of pathology and concern regarding allegations of sexual misconduct. Conclusions: Our findings allude to the need for international consensus guidelines regarding the conduct and inclusion of concealed or sensitive sites in routine FSE. This is essential to define clinician responsibilities, inform patient expectations of care, and thereby mitigate potential medicolegal repercussions.
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.