ReviewJAAD international2026
Cost and cost-effectiveness of Mohs micrographic surgery versus conventional excision for nonmelanoma skin cancer: A scoping review.
Review in JAAD international, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) are commonly treated with conventional excision (CE) or Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS), but their relative cost-effectiveness remains uncertain. Objective: To summarize the available economic evidence comparing MMS and CE for NMSC and, secondarily, to identify methodological gaps that limit interpretation of comparative cost-effectiveness. Methods: We performed a scoping review of EMBASE, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane (January 11, 2025). Studies reporting costs and/or incremental cost-effectiveness between MMS and CE for NMSC were included. Results: Twelve studies (1999-2023) from the United States ( Limitations: Main limitations included cross-system cost incomparability, predominance of observational designs with short horizons, inconsistent capture of downstream recurrence costs and patient-reported outcomes, and reliance on appropriate use criteria not designed for economic inference. Conclusion: Despite superior clinical margin control with MMS, inconsistent economic methods yield conflicting cost-effectiveness conclusions. Standardized, data-driven evaluations that incorporate comprehensive costs, long-term outcomes, and patient-centered measures are needed to guide the indication-specific use of MMS versus CE.
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.