Cited by 122Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Managementmelanin and skin pigmentationHealthcare Systems and Technology

Diagnosing and managing cutaneous pigmented lesions: primary care physicians versus dermatologists.

Open access
Chen, Suephy C., Pennie, Michelle L., Kolm, Paul, Warshaw, Erin M., Weisberg, Eric L., Brown, Katherine M., Ming, Michael E., Weintraub, William S.·2006·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background Primary care physicians (PCPs) are often expected to screen for melanomas and refer patients with suspicious pigmented lesions to dermatologists.Objective To assess whether there is a difference between dermatologists and PCPs in accurately diagnosing melanoma and appropriately managing (based on decisions to refer/biopsy) suspicious pigmented lesions.Design, participants A survey based on a random sample of 30 photographs of pigmented lesions with known pathology was administered to 101 dermatologists and 115 PCPs from October 2001 to January 2003.Measurements Likelihoods that a photographed lesion was melanoma and that the lesion should be biopsied/referred were scored on a 1 to 10 scale. Accuracy of melanoma diagnosis and appropriateness of pigmented lesion management were compared between dermatologists and PCPs by using the areas under (AUC) the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.Results Dermatologists were superior to PCPs in diagnosing melanomas (AUC 0.89 vs 0.80, P<.001) and appropriately managing pigmented lesions (AUC .84 vs 0.76, P<.001). PCPs who tended to biopsy lesions themselves did better at managing pigmented lesions than PCPs who did not perform biopsies. Dermatology training during residency did not significantly improve the diagnostic accuracy of PCPs nor their management of pigmented lesions.Conclusions Dermatologists have both better diagnostic accuracy and ability to manage pigmented lesions than PCPs. Yet, there is a shortage of dermatologists to meet the demand of accurate melanoma screening. More innovative strategies are needed to better train PCPs and enhance skin cancer screening.

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 · 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00462.x

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. American Cancer Society. Cancer statistics 2005: A presentation from the American Cancer Society [presentation on the Internet]. Vol. 2005 [cited 2005 Sept 21]. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ PRO/content/PRO_1_1_cancer_statistics_2005_presentation.asp.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, S. C., Pennie, M. L., Kolm, P., Warshaw, E. M., Weisberg, E. L., Brown, K. M., Ming, M. E., & Weintraub, W. S.
Affiliations
  • Emory University (US)
  • Christiana Care Health System (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • Brown University (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Chen, Suephy C.
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2006-07
Volume
21
Issue
7
Pages
678-682
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W1968877564
Cited by
122
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (K23AR02185-01A1, K23AR002185)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › melanin and skin pigmentation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
Keywords
melanoma diagnosis, primary care physicians, dermatologists, diagnostic accuracy, skin cancer screening, biopsy decision, referral decisions, physician training, dermatology residency training, physician shortage
MeSH terms
Biopsy, Dermatology, Family Practice, Female, Humans, Internal Medicine, Male, Physicians, Family, Pigmentation Disorders, Skin Diseases, Reproducibility of Results, Treatment Outcome

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