Cited by 95Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Managementmelanin and skin pigmentationCancer and Skin Lesions

Using the 7-point checklist as a diagnostic aid for pigmented skin lesions in general practice: a diagnostic validation study

Open access
Walter, Fiona M, Prevost, A Toby, Vasconcelos, Joana, Hall, Per N, Burrows, Nigel P, Morris, Helen C, Kinmonth, Ann Louise, Emery, Jon D·2013·British Journal of General Practice

Abstract

BACKGROUND: GPs need to recognise significant pigmented skin lesions, given rising UK incidence rates for malignant melanoma. The 7-point checklist (7PCL) has been recommended by NICE (2005) for routine use in UK general practice to identify clinically significant lesions which require urgent referral. AIM: To validate the Original and Weighted versions of the 7PCL in the primary care setting. DESIGN AND SETTING: Diagnostic validation study, using data from a SIAscopic diagnostic aid randomised controlled trial in eastern England. METHOD: Adults presenting in general practice with a pigmented skin lesion that could not be immediately diagnosed as benign were recruited into the trial. Reference standard diagnoses were histology or dermatology expert opinion; 7PCL scores were calculated blinded to the reference diagnosis. A case was defined as a clinically significant lesion for primary care referral to secondary care (total 1436 lesions: 225 cases, 1211 controls); or melanoma (36). RESULTS: For diagnosing clinically significant lesions there was a difference between the performance of the Original and Weighted 7PCLs (respectively, area under curve: 0.66, 0.69, difference = 0.03, P<0.001). For the identification of melanoma, similar differences were found. Increasing the Weighted 7PCL's cut-off score from recommended 3 to 4 improved detection of clinically significant lesions in primary care: sensitivity 73.3%, specificity 57.1%, positive predictive value 24.1%, negative predictive value 92.0%, while maintaining high sensitivity of 91.7% and moderate specificity of 53.4% for melanoma. CONCLUSION: The Original and Weighted 7PCLs both performed well in a primary care setting to identify clinically significant lesions as well as melanoma. The Weighted 7PCL, with a revised cut-off score of 4 from 3, performs slightly better and could be applied in general practice to support the recognition of clinically significant lesions and therefore the early identification of melanoma.

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 · 10.3399/bjgp13x667213

Cites

24 of 24 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Walter, F. M., Prevost, A. T., Vasconcelos, J., Hall, P. N., Burrows, N. P., Morris, H. C., Kinmonth, A. L., & Emery, J. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2013-05
Volume
63
Issue
610
Pages
e345-e353
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
OpenAlex
W2125581910
Cited by
95
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0508-10072)
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 › Dermatology › Cancer and Skin Lesions
Keywords
pigmented skin lesions, melanoma, diagnostic accuracy, primary care referral, cut-off values, early melanoma detection, general practice
MeSH terms
Adult, England, Female, Humans, Male, Melanoma, Middle Aged, Pigmentation Disorders, Primary Health Care, Referral and Consultation, Sensitivity and Specificity, Skin Neoplasms, Checklist, General Practice

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