Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 322

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Screening for Skin Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

US Preventive Services Task Force, Bibbins-Domingo, Kirsten, Grossman, David C., Curry, Susan J., Davidson, Karina W., Ebell, Mark, Epling, John W., García, Francisco A. R., Gillman, Matthew W., Kemper, Alex R., Krist, Alex H., Kurth, Ann E., Landefeld, C. Seth, Mangione, Carol M., Phillips, William R., Phipps, Maureen G., Pignone, Michael P., Siu, Albert L.·2016·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.2016.8465
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Basal and squamous cell carcinoma are the most common types of cancer in the United States and represent the vast majority of all cases of skin cancer; however, they rarely result in death or substantial morbidity, whereas melanoma skin cancer has notably higher mortality rates. In 2016, an estimated 76,400 US men and women will develop melanoma and 10,100 will die from the disease. OBJECTIVE: To update the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for skin cancer. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of screening for skin cancer with a clinical visual skin examination in reducing skin cancer morbidity and mortality and death from any cause; its potential harms, including any harms resulting from associated diagnostic follow-up; its test characteristics when performed by a primary care clinician vs a dermatologist; and whether its use leads to earlier detection of skin cancer compared with usual care. FINDINGS: Evidence to assess the net benefit of screening for skin cancer with a clinical visual skin examination is limited. Direct evidence on the effectiveness of screening in reducing melanoma morbidity and mortality is limited to a single fair-quality ecologic study with important methodological limitations. Information on harms is similarly sparse. The potential for harm clearly exists, including a high rate of unnecessary biopsies, possibly resulting in cosmetic or, more rarely, functional adverse effects, and the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION: The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of visual skin examination by a clinician to screen for skin cancer in adults (I statement).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2016.8465

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Cited by

See all 322

Metadata

Authors
US Preventive Services Task Force, Bibbins-Domingo, K., Grossman, D. C., Curry, S. J., Davidson, K. W., Ebell, M., Epling, J. W., García, F. A. R., Gillman, M. W., Kemper, A. R., Krist, A. H., Kurth, A. E., Landefeld, C. S., Mangione, C. M., Phillips, W. R., Phipps, M. G., Pignone, M. P., & Siu, A. L.
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2016-07-26
Volume
316
Issue
4
Pages
429
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.2016.8465
OpenAlex
W2814634423
Cited by
322
References
17
FWCI
23.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Screening for Skin Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2016.8465
The paper
US Preventive Services Task Force, Bibbins-Domingo, K., Grossman, D. C., Curry, S. J., Davidson, K. W., Ebell, M., Epling, J. W., García, F. A. R., Gillman, M. W., Kemper, A. R., Krist, A. H., Kurth, A. E., Landefeld, C. S., Mangione, C. M., Phillips, W. R., Phipps, M. G., Pignone, M. P., & Siu, A. L. (2016). Screening for Skin Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.8465

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.