Diagnosis of Cutaneous Melanoma: The Gap Between the Knowledge of General Practitioners and Dermatologists in a Brazilian Population
Abstract
The early diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma provides less aggressive treatment reducing mortality. General practitioners are responsible for cancer diagnoses in the Brazilian Public Health System and therefore play a crucial role in the prevention and early detection of melanoma. To assess the melanoma knowledge of a primary healthcare physician, the general practitioner, compared to a dermatologist. General practitioners and dermatologists answered a questionnaire about melanoma and the management of suspected cases. The results of both groups were compared. The sample consisted of 80 specialists and 160 general practitioners. When asked about the "ABCDE" rule, 96.2% of the dermatologists knew about it, compared to 34.4% of the general practitioners. The percentage of dermatologists who examined the whole skin of the patient at high risk for melanoma was 90% vs. 24.5% amongst general practitioners. The most cited reasons for the absence of the examination of patients at risk for melanoma were lack of time at the consultations (17.6% specialists, 66.1% generalists) and an excessive number of patients (17.6% specialists, 61.5% generalists). General practitioner has less knowledge about melanoma compared to the dermatologists and presents deficient behaviors about patients at risk or who have suspicious lesions, indicating the need for training and continuing education.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Specialists who are more familiar with disease-specific diagnostic guidelines may conduct more comprehensive examinations and may detect disease at an earlier stage.
“specialists who are more familiar with disease-specific diagnostic guidelines may conduct more comprehensive examinations and may detect disease at an earlier stage [87].”
From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [87]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 28 · Cited by 15
- Authors
- Garrido, A. Q., Wainstein, A. J. A., Brandão, M. P. A., de Vasconcellos Santos, F. A., Bittencourt, F. V., Ledsham, C., & Drummond-Lage, A. P.
- Affiliations
- Faculdade de Ciências Médicas de Minas Gerais (BR)
- Venue
- Journal of Cancer Education
- Published
- 2020-03-19
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 819-825
- ISSN
- 0885-8195 (ISSN-L)
- 1543-0154
- OpenAlex
- W4244634978
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 28
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 0.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- correction (2020-05-27)
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Cancer Education (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › melanin and skin pigmentation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Keywords
- cutaneous melanoma, early diagnosis, general practitioners, dermatologists, physician knowledge, ABCDE rule, skin assessment, primary care, continuing medical education, Brazilian public health system
- MeSH terms
- Dermatologists, Melanoma, Cutaneous Malignant, Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma, Adult, Brazil, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diagnostic Errors, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Melanoma, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Surveys and Questionnaires, Skin Neoplasms, General Practitioners
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