Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 286

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dermoscopy Improves Accuracy of Primary Care Physicians to Triage Lesions Suggestive of Skin Cancer

Argenziano, Giuseppe, Puig, Susana, Zalaudek, Iris, Sera, Francesco, Corona, Rosamaria, Alsina, Mercè, Barbato, Filomena, Carrera, Cristina, Ferrara, Gerardo, Guilabert, Antonio, Massi, Daniela, Moreno-Romero, Juan A., Muñoz-Santos, Carlos, Petrillo, Gianluca, Segura, Sonia, Soyer, H. Peter, Zanchini, Renato, Malvehy, Josep·2006·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: Primary care physicians (PCPs) constitute an appropriate target for new interventions and educational campaigns designed to increase skin cancer screening and prevention. The aim of this randomized study was to determine whether the adjunct of dermoscopy to the standard clinical examination improves the accuracy of PCPs to triage lesions suggestive of skin cancer. Patients and Methods: PCPs in Barcelona, Spain, and Naples, Italy, were given a 1-day training course in skin cancer detection and dermoscopic evaluation, and were randomly assigned to the dermoscopy evaluation arm or naked-eye evaluation arm. During a 16-month period, 73 physicians evaluated 2,522 patients with skin lesions who attended their clinics and scored individual lesions as benign or suggestive of skin cancer. All patients were re-evaluated by expert dermatologists at clinics for pigmented lesions. Referral accuracy of both PCP groups was calculated by their scores, which were compared to those tabulated for dermatologists. Results: Referral sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 54.1%, 71.3%, 11.3%, and 95.8%, respectively, in the naked-eye arm, and 79.2%, 71.8%, 16.1%, and 98.1%, respectively, in the dermoscopy arm. Significant differences were found in terms of sensitivity and negative predictive value (P = .002 and P = .004, respectively). Histopathologic examination of equivocal lesions revealed 23 malignant skin tumors missed by PCPs performing naked-eye observation and only six by PCPs using dermoscopy (P = .002). Conclusion: The use of dermoscopy improves the ability of PCPs to triage lesions suggestive of skin cancer without increasing the number of unnecessary expert consultations.

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 · 10.1200/jco.2005.05.0864

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 286

Metadata

Authors
Argenziano, G., Puig, S., Zalaudek, I., Sera, F., Corona, R., Alsina, M., Barbato, F., Carrera, C., Ferrara, G., Guilabert, A., Massi, D., Moreno-Romero, J. A., Muñoz-Santos, C., Petrillo, G., Segura, S., Soyer, H. P., Zanchini, R., & Malvehy, J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2006-04-20
Volume
24
Issue
12
Pages
1877-1882
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2148887465
Cited by
286
References
2
FWCI
5.27
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: Dermoscopy Improves Accuracy of Primary Care Physicians to Triage Lesions Suggestive of Skin Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2005.05.0864
The paper
Argenziano, G., Puig, S., Zalaudek, I., Sera, F., Corona, R., Alsina, M., Barbato, F., Carrera, C., Ferrara, G., Guilabert, A., Massi, D., Moreno-Romero, J. A., Muñoz-Santos, C., Petrillo, G., Segura, S., Soyer, H. P., Zanchini, R., & Malvehy, J. (2006). Dermoscopy Improves Accuracy of Primary Care Physicians to Triage Lesions Suggestive of Skin Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2005.05.0864

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.