The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Clinical whole‐body skin examination reduces the incidence of thick melanomas
Open accessAbstract
Survival from melanoma is strongly related to tumour thickness, thus earlier diagnosis has the potential to reduce mortality from this disease. However, in the absence of conclusive evidence that clinical skin examination reduces mortality, evidence‐based assessments do not recommend population screening. We aimed to assess whether clinical whole‐body skin examination is associated with a reduced incidence of thick melanoma and also whether screening is associated with an increased incidence of thin lesions (possible overdiagnosis). We conducted a population‐based case‐control study of all Queensland residents aged 20–75 years with a histologically confirmed first primary invasive cutaneous melanoma diagnosed between January 2000 and December 2003. Telephone interviews were completed by 3,762 eligible cases (78.0%) and 3,824 eligible controls (50.4%). Whole‐body clinical skin examination in the three years before diagnosis was associated with a 14% lower risk of being diagnosed with a thick melanoma (>0.75 mm) (OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.75, 0.98). Risk decreased for melanomas of increasing thickness: the risk of being diagnosed with a melanoma 0.76–1.49 mm was reduced by 7% (OR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.79, 1.10), by 17% for melanomas 1.50–2.99 mm (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.65, 1.05) and by 40% for melanomas ≥3 mm (OR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.43, 0.83). Screening was associated with a 38% higher risk of being diagnosed with a thin invasive melanoma (≤0.75 mm) (OR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.22, 1.56). This is the strongest evidence to date that whole‐body clinical skin examination reduces the incidence of thick melanoma. Because survival from melanoma is strongly related to tumour thickness, these results suggest that screening would reduce melanoma mortality.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Toward a Clearer Definition of Confounding
Weinberg, C. R. (1993) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116591 · Cited by 401
Cited by
Long, G. V., Swetter, S. M., Menzies, A. M., Gershenwald, J. E., & Scolyer, R. A. (2023) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(23)00821-8 · Cited by 746
Screening for Skin Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
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., et al. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.8465 · Cited by 322
An Epidemiologic Analysis of Melanoma Overdiagnosis in the United States, 1975–2017
Kurtansky, N. R., Dusza, S. W., Halpern, A. C., Hartman, R. I., Geller, A. C., Marghoob, A. A., Rotemberg, V. M., & Marchetti, M. A. (2022) · Journal of Investigative Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.jid.2021.12.003 · Cited by 65
The role of technology in melanoma screening and diagnosis
Young, A. T., Vora, N. B., Cortez, J., Tam, A., Yeniay, Y., Afifi, L., Yan, D., Nosrati, A., Wong, A., Johal, A., et al. (2021) · Pigment Cell & Melanoma Research · doi:10.1111/pcmr.12907 · Cited by 60
Metadata
- Authors
- Aitken, J. F., Elwood, M., Baade, P. D., Youl, P., & English, D.
- Venue
- International Journal of Cancer
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-09-08
- Volume
- 126
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 450-458
- ISSN
- 0020-7136 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0215
- OpenAlex
- W154746895
- Cited by
- 194
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Clinical whole‐body skin examination reduces the incidence of thick melanomas. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ijc.24747
- The paper
- Aitken, J. F., Elwood, M., Baade, P. D., Youl, P., & English, D. (2010). Clinical whole‐body skin examination reduces the incidence of thick melanomas. International Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.24747
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.