按病变、医生和检查类型诊断皮肤癌:系统回顾与元分析》。

IF 11.5 1区 医学 Q1 DERMATOLOGY JAMA dermatology Pub Date : 2024-11-13 DOI:10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.4382
Jennifer Y Chen, Kristen Fernandez, Raj P Fadadu, Rasika Reddy, Mi-Ok Kim, Josephine Tan, Maria L Wei
{"title":"按病变、医生和检查类型诊断皮肤癌:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Jennifer Y Chen, Kristen Fernandez, Raj P Fadadu, Rasika Reddy, Mi-Ok Kim, Josephine Tan, Maria L Wei","doi":"10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.4382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the US; accurate detection can minimize morbidity and mortality.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the accuracy of skin cancer diagnosis by lesion type, physician specialty and experience, and physical examination method.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Cross-sectional and case-control studies, randomized clinical trials, and nonrandomized controlled trials that used dermatologists or primary care physicians (PCPs) to examine keratinocytic and/or melanocytic skin lesions were included.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>Search terms, study objectives, and protocol methods were defined before study initiation. Data extraction was performed by a reviewer, with verification by a second reviewer. A mixed-effects model was used in the data analysis. Data analyses were performed from May 2022 to December 2023.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy comprised sensitivity and specificity by physician type (primary care physician or dermatologist; experienced or inexperienced) and examination method (in-person clinical examination and/or clinical images vs dermoscopy and/or dermoscopic images).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In all, 100 studies were included in the analysis. With experienced dermatologists using clinical examination and clinical images, the sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing keratinocytic carcinomas were 79.0% and 89.1%, respectively; using dermoscopy and dermoscopic images, sensitivity and specificity were 83.7% and 87.4%, and for PCPs, 81.4% and 80.1%. Experienced dermatologists had 2.5-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of keratinocytic carcinomas using in-person dermoscopy and dermoscopic images compared with in-person clinical examination and images. When examining for melanoma using clinical examination and images, sensitivity and specificity were 76.9% and 89.1% for experienced dermatologists, 78.3% and 66.2% for inexperienced dermatologists, and 37.5% and 84.6% for PCPs, respectively; whereas when using dermoscopy and dermoscopic images, sensitivity and specificity were 85.7% and 81.3%, 78.0% and 69.5%, and 49.5% and 91.3%, respectively. Experienced dermatologists had 5.7-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of melanoma using dermoscopy compared with clinical examination. Compared with PCPs, experienced dermatologists had 13.3-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of melanoma using dermoscopic images.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that there are significant differences in diagnostic accuracy for skin cancer when comparing physician specialty and experience, and examination methods. These summary metrics of clinician diagnostic accuracy could be useful benchmarks for clinical trials, practitioner training, and the performance of emerging technologies.</p>","PeriodicalId":14734,"journal":{"name":"JAMA dermatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11561728/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Skin Cancer Diagnosis by Lesion, Physician, and Examination Type: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Jennifer Y Chen, Kristen Fernandez, Raj P Fadadu, Rasika Reddy, Mi-Ok Kim, Josephine Tan, Maria L Wei\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.4382\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the US; accurate detection can minimize morbidity and mortality.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the accuracy of skin cancer diagnosis by lesion type, physician specialty and experience, and physical examination method.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>Cross-sectional and case-control studies, randomized clinical trials, and nonrandomized controlled trials that used dermatologists or primary care physicians (PCPs) to examine keratinocytic and/or melanocytic skin lesions were included.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and synthesis: </strong>Search terms, study objectives, and protocol methods were defined before study initiation. Data extraction was performed by a reviewer, with verification by a second reviewer. A mixed-effects model was used in the data analysis. Data analyses were performed from May 2022 to December 2023.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy comprised sensitivity and specificity by physician type (primary care physician or dermatologist; experienced or inexperienced) and examination method (in-person clinical examination and/or clinical images vs dermoscopy and/or dermoscopic images).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In all, 100 studies were included in the analysis. With experienced dermatologists using clinical examination and clinical images, the sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing keratinocytic carcinomas were 79.0% and 89.1%, respectively; using dermoscopy and dermoscopic images, sensitivity and specificity were 83.7% and 87.4%, and for PCPs, 81.4% and 80.1%. Experienced dermatologists had 2.5-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of keratinocytic carcinomas using in-person dermoscopy and dermoscopic images compared with in-person clinical examination and images. When examining for melanoma using clinical examination and images, sensitivity and specificity were 76.9% and 89.1% for experienced dermatologists, 78.3% and 66.2% for inexperienced dermatologists, and 37.5% and 84.6% for PCPs, respectively; whereas when using dermoscopy and dermoscopic images, sensitivity and specificity were 85.7% and 81.3%, 78.0% and 69.5%, and 49.5% and 91.3%, respectively. Experienced dermatologists had 5.7-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of melanoma using dermoscopy compared with clinical examination. Compared with PCPs, experienced dermatologists had 13.3-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of melanoma using dermoscopic images.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that there are significant differences in diagnostic accuracy for skin cancer when comparing physician specialty and experience, and examination methods. These summary metrics of clinician diagnostic accuracy could be useful benchmarks for clinical trials, practitioner training, and the performance of emerging technologies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14734,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JAMA dermatology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":11.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11561728/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JAMA dermatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.4382\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DERMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA dermatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.4382","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性:皮肤癌是美国最常见的癌症;准确检测可最大限度地降低发病率和死亡率:根据病变类型、医生专业和经验以及体格检查方法,评估皮肤癌诊断的准确性:数据来源:PubMed、Embase 和 Web of Science:数据提取与综合:在研究开始前确定检索词、研究目标和方案方法。数据提取由一名审稿人完成,并由第二名审稿人进行核实。数据分析采用混合效应模型。数据分析时间为2022年5月至2023年12月:根据医生类型(初级保健医生或皮肤科医生;经验丰富或经验不足)和检查方法(当面临床检查和/或临床图像与皮肤镜检查和/或皮肤镜图像),对诊断准确性的敏感性和特异性进行Meta分析:共有 100 项研究被纳入分析。经验丰富的皮肤科医生使用临床检查和临床图像诊断角化细胞癌的灵敏度和特异度分别为79.0%和89.1%;使用皮肤镜和皮肤镜图像诊断角化细胞癌的灵敏度和特异度分别为83.7%和87.4%,初级保健医生的灵敏度和特异度分别为81.4%和80.1%。经验丰富的皮肤科医生使用当面皮肤镜检查和皮肤镜图像准确诊断角化细胞癌的几率是当面临床检查和图像的 2.5 倍。在使用临床检查和图像检查黑色素瘤时,经验丰富的皮肤科医生的敏感性和特异性分别为 76.9% 和 89.1%,经验不足的皮肤科医生为 78.3% 和 66.2%,初级保健医生为 37.5% 和 84.6%;而在使用皮肤镜和皮肤镜图像时,敏感性和特异性分别为 85.7% 和 81.3%,78.0% 和 69.5%,49.5% 和 91.3%。与临床检查相比,经验丰富的皮肤科医生使用皮肤镜准确诊断黑色素瘤的几率要高出 5.7 倍。与初级保健医生相比,经验丰富的皮肤科医生使用皮肤镜图像准确诊断黑色素瘤的几率要高出13.3倍:本系统综述和荟萃分析的结果表明,在比较医生的专业和经验以及检查方法时,皮肤癌的诊断准确率存在显著差异。这些临床医生诊断准确性的简要指标可作为临床试验、从业人员培训和新兴技术性能的有用基准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Skin Cancer Diagnosis by Lesion, Physician, and Examination Type: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the US; accurate detection can minimize morbidity and mortality.

Objective: To assess the accuracy of skin cancer diagnosis by lesion type, physician specialty and experience, and physical examination method.

Data sources: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science.

Study selection: Cross-sectional and case-control studies, randomized clinical trials, and nonrandomized controlled trials that used dermatologists or primary care physicians (PCPs) to examine keratinocytic and/or melanocytic skin lesions were included.

Data extraction and synthesis: Search terms, study objectives, and protocol methods were defined before study initiation. Data extraction was performed by a reviewer, with verification by a second reviewer. A mixed-effects model was used in the data analysis. Data analyses were performed from May 2022 to December 2023.

Main outcomes and measures: Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy comprised sensitivity and specificity by physician type (primary care physician or dermatologist; experienced or inexperienced) and examination method (in-person clinical examination and/or clinical images vs dermoscopy and/or dermoscopic images).

Results: In all, 100 studies were included in the analysis. With experienced dermatologists using clinical examination and clinical images, the sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing keratinocytic carcinomas were 79.0% and 89.1%, respectively; using dermoscopy and dermoscopic images, sensitivity and specificity were 83.7% and 87.4%, and for PCPs, 81.4% and 80.1%. Experienced dermatologists had 2.5-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of keratinocytic carcinomas using in-person dermoscopy and dermoscopic images compared with in-person clinical examination and images. When examining for melanoma using clinical examination and images, sensitivity and specificity were 76.9% and 89.1% for experienced dermatologists, 78.3% and 66.2% for inexperienced dermatologists, and 37.5% and 84.6% for PCPs, respectively; whereas when using dermoscopy and dermoscopic images, sensitivity and specificity were 85.7% and 81.3%, 78.0% and 69.5%, and 49.5% and 91.3%, respectively. Experienced dermatologists had 5.7-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of melanoma using dermoscopy compared with clinical examination. Compared with PCPs, experienced dermatologists had 13.3-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of melanoma using dermoscopic images.

Conclusions and relevance: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that there are significant differences in diagnostic accuracy for skin cancer when comparing physician specialty and experience, and examination methods. These summary metrics of clinician diagnostic accuracy could be useful benchmarks for clinical trials, practitioner training, and the performance of emerging technologies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JAMA dermatology
JAMA dermatology DERMATOLOGY-
CiteScore
14.10
自引率
5.50%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: JAMA Dermatology is an international peer-reviewed journal that has been in continuous publication since 1882. It began publication by the American Medical Association in 1920 as Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology. The journal publishes material that helps in the development and testing of the effectiveness of diagnosis and treatment in medical and surgical dermatology, pediatric and geriatric dermatology, and oncologic and aesthetic dermatologic surgery. JAMA Dermatology is a member of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed, general medical and specialty publications. It is published online weekly, every Wednesday, and in 12 print/online issues a year. The mission of the journal is to elevate the art and science of health and diseases of skin, hair, nails, and mucous membranes, and their treatment, with the aim of enabling dermatologists to deliver evidence-based, high-value medical and surgical dermatologic care. The journal publishes a broad range of innovative studies and trials that shift research and clinical practice paradigms, expand the understanding of the burden of dermatologic diseases and key outcomes, improve the practice of dermatology, and ensure equitable care to all patients. It also features research and opinion examining ethical, moral, socioeconomic, educational, and political issues relevant to dermatologists, aiming to enable ongoing improvement to the workforce, scope of practice, and the training of future dermatologists. JAMA Dermatology aims to be a leader in developing initiatives to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion within the specialty and within dermatology medical publishing.
期刊最新文献
Annular Eroded Plaque With Honey-Colored Crusting On Scrotum. Error in Figure 2. Low-Dose Oral Minoxidil Initiation for Patients With Hair Loss: An International Modified Delphi Consensus Statement. Salt and Atopic Dermatitis. Salt and Atopic Dermatitis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1