Advanced Search

Study Preview



Study Title and Description

Fee comparisons of treatments for nonmelanoma skin cancer in a private practice academic setting.



Key Questions Addressed
1 Comparison of interventions
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Primary Publication Information
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
TitleData
Title Fee comparisons of treatments for nonmelanoma skin cancer in a private practice academic setting.
Author Wilson LS., Pregenzer M., Basu R., Bertenthal D., Torres J., Asgari M., Chren MM.
Country University of California at San Francisco, San Francisco, California 94013, USA. wilsonl@pharmacy.ucsf.edu
Year 2012
Numbers Pubmed ID: 22145798

Secondary Publication Information
UI Title Author Country Year
Variation in care for nonmelanoma skin cancer in a private practice and a veterans affairs clinic Chren MM, Sahay AP, Sands LP, Maddock L, Lindquist K, Bertenthal D, Bacchetti P. Dermatology Service, Research Enhancement Award Program of the Health Services Research and Development Service, Department of Veterans Affairs 2004
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |



Extraction Form: Comparative studies
Arms
No arms have been defined in this extraction form.

Design Details
Question... Follow Up Answer Follow-up Answer
Publication or abstract? Publication
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Study design Retrospective nRCS
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Multicenter etc. Multicenter
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Country/Region United States
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Funding No industry support
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Inclusion criteria NMSCs identified by daily review of pathology records and defined according to final histopathologic diagnosis of BCC or SCC.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Exclusion criteria No "recurrent" or "possibly recurrent skin cancers
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
N Enrolled/Randomized/Analyzed 1777
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
NA
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
1777
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Notes/Comments Please see summary of this study in the Downloaded Document section of this published project. The summary is in the word document, "NRCS_Wilson at al summary_BTS 12-2-16"
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Method of diagnosis ... Describe Biopsy/pathologic confirmation ... Biopsies were performed either by dermatology faculty members, dermatology residents, nurse practitioners
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Preoperative assessment of clinical size of the tumor ... not reported ...
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Percent non-primary (recurrent) 0%
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Secondary size assessment NR
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |


Baseline Characteristics
Question Total Comments
AnswerFollow-up
Continuous baselines No data entered.
Gender/Racial descent No data entered.
Lesion location No data entered.
Skin type (Fitzpatrick score) No data entered.
Number of lesions per patient No data entered.
Previous treatments No data entered.
Immunocompromized status No data entered.
Number of patients/lesions No data entered.
Lesion extent number of people No data entered.
Lesion extent number of people No data entered.



Results & Comparisons

No Results found.

Quality Dimensions
Dimension Value Notes Comments
RCT:....Adequate generation of a randomized sequence reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT:....Adequate allocation concealment reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT:....Adequate blinding of PATIENTS reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT:....Adequate blinding of PROVIDERS reported
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL....Adequate blinding of OUTCOME ASSESSORS reported No Data Blinding of outcome assessors not reported.Exposure of interest was treatment center: private treatment center or VA center.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Incomplete results data: are more than 20% missing for any eligible outcome in any group? Low Risk No loss of follow-up reported.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Selective Reporting (judgement - put directly into notes field). No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
RCT.....Is the treatment effect by Intention to treat?
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL....Group similarity at baseline. No Statistically significant difference between patients at private site and VA site in terms of Age (private patients are younger), gender (private patients are more female), annual income (private patients are less likely to be poor), tumor size (private tumors are smaller in diameter), histologic type (private tumors are less likely to be SCC), location (private tumors are less likely to be on head and neck), and H-zone (private tumors are less likely to be in the h-zone of the face).
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL....Additional Bias: Bias due to problems not covered elsewhere. (judgement - put directly into notes field) No
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL (with AE results)....Were reported adverse events (of interest) precisely defined No Data Authors do not mention AEs at all.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
Overall, by outcome (judgement - put directly into notes field) Low Risk Differences at Baseline were controlled for in multivariate analysis. It is reported that it is unlikely that Clinical differences of patients accounted for all the variation in care between the treatment centers.
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |
ALL.....Incomplete results data: Is there differential missingness (more than 20%) between arms for any eligible outcome? Low Risk
  • Comments Comments (
    0
    ) |

Quality Rating
No quality rating data was found.