Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2009;114(1):32-40.
doi: 10.1080/03009730802579620.

Time-trend of melanoma screening practice by primary care physicians: a meta-regression analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Time-trend of melanoma screening practice by primary care physicians: a meta-regression analysis

Antonis Valachis et al. Ups J Med Sci. 2009.

Abstract

Objective: To assess whether the proportion of primary care physicians implementing full body skin examination (FBSE) to screen for melanoma changed over time.

Methods: Meta-regression analyses of available data.

Data sources: MEDLINE, ISI, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.

Results: Fifteen studies surveying 10,336 physicians were included in the analyses. Overall, 15%-82% of them reported to perform FBSE to screen for melanoma. The proportion of physicians using FBSE screening tended to decrease by 1.72% per year (P =0.086). Corresponding annual changes in European, North American, and Australian settings were -0.68% (P =0.494), -2.02% (P =0.044), and +2.59% (P =0.010), respectively. Changes were not influenced by national guide-lines.

Conclusions: Considering the increasing incidence of melanoma and other skin malignancies, as well as their relative potential consequences, the FBSE implementation time-trend we retrieved should be considered a worrisome phenomenon.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flow chart of the study selection.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Proportion of primary care physicians who declare to perform full body skin examination over time. A: Overall (all eligible studies included). B: Analysis by continent. C: Analyses by presence of guide-lines. (A-NZ = Australia–New Zealand; Yes = national authorities suggest to implement melanoma screening practice among the overall population; NO = national authorities do not advocate implementation of screening practice for melanoma; NA = not assessable (national guide-lines absent or conflicting)).

Similar articles

References

    1. Ries LAG, Eisner MP, Kosary CL, Hankey BF, Miller BA, Clegg L, et al. Bethesda: MD: National Cancer Institute; 2005. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2002. Available from. (accessed March 2008)
    1. American Cancer Society http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/2008CAFFfinalsecured.pdf. Cancer facts and figures 2008. Available from: (accessed March 2008)
    1. Young SE, Giulano AE, Morton DL. Three decades of evolving treatment for melanoma: No improvement in survival? J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7511.
    1. Geller AC, Swetter SM, Brooks K, Demierre MF, Yaroch AL. Screening, early detection and trends for melanoma: current status (2000–2006) and future directions. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007;57:555–72. - PubMed
    1. Rigel DS, Carucci JA. Malignant melanoma prevention, early detection and treatment in the 21st century. CA Cancer J Clin. 2000;50:215–37. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources