Deakin University

File(s) under embargo

Protocol for a systematic review of reviews on training primary care providers in dermoscopy to detect skin cancers

Version 4 2024-06-20, 02:39
Version 3 2024-06-15, 20:53
Version 2 2024-06-03, 02:17
Version 1 2023-12-19, 03:36
journal contribution
posted on 2024-06-20, 02:39 authored by Nikki McCaffreyNikki McCaffrey, Jessica BucholcJessica Bucholc, L Ng, K Chai, Ann LivingstoneAnn Livingstone, April MurphyApril Murphy, LG Gordon
IntroductionGlobally, incidence, prevalence and mortality rates of skin cancers are escalating. Earlier detection by well-trained primary care providers in techniques such as dermoscopy could reduce unnecessary referrals and improve longer term outcomes. A review of reviews is planned to compare and contrast the conduct, quality, findings and conclusions of multiple systematic and scoping reviews addressing the effectiveness of training primary care providers in dermoscopy, which will provide a critique and synthesis of the current body of review evidence.Methods and analysisFour databases (Cochrane, CINAHL, EMBASE and MEDLINE Complete) will be comprehensively searched from database inception to identify published, peer-reviewed English-language articles describing scoping and systematic reviews of the effectiveness of training primary care providers in the use of dermoscopy to detect skin cancers. Two researchers will independently conduct the searches and screen the results for potentially eligible studies using ‘Research Screener’ (a semi-automated machine learning tool). Backwards and forwards citation tracing will be conducted to supplement the search. A narrative summary of included reviews will be conducted. Study characteristics, for example, population; type of educational programme, including content, delivery method, duration and assessment; and outcomes for dermoscopy will be extracted into a standardised table. Data extraction will be checked by the second reviewer. Methodological quality will be evaluated by two reviewers independently using the Critical Appraisal Tool for Health Promotion and Prevention Reviews. Results of the assessments will be considered by the two reviewers and any discrepancies will be resolved by team consensus.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required to conduct the planned systematic review of peer-reviewed, published articles because the research does not involve human participants. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at leading public health, cancer and primary care conferences, and disseminated via website postings and social media channels.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42023396276.



BMJ open













Publication classification

C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal