MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6902513045 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.7969542

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on melanoma diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of global evidence

2025· other· en· W6902513045 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyPandemicMelanomaSystematic reviewOdds ratioMeta-analysisMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted healthcare systems worldwide. Prioritizing emergency responses resulted in the postponement of routine medical care, including melanoma diagnoses. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the pandemic’s effect on diagnosis rates, Breslow thickness, stage at presentation, ulceration, histologic subtypes, and patient age. Method We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase were searched up to 10 September 2024 for observational studies comparing melanoma outcomes in the pre-COVID era (before March 2020) with the COVID era (March 2020 onwards). Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data on diagnostic counts, patient age, Breslow thickness, ulceration, and histopathological subtype, and assessed study quality using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). Random-effects models pooled rate ratios (RRs) or odds ratios (ORs); fixed-effects models pooled mean differences (MDs). Heterogeneity was evaluated with I², and sensitivity analyses were restricted to high-quality studies (NOS ≥ 7). Results Sixty-two studies (38,676 pre-COVID and 46,846 COVID-era melanomas) met inclusion criteria. New melanoma diagnoses fell by 19% during the pandemic (RR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.75–0.86; I² = 98%). Mean age at diagnosis rose by 0.86 years (95% CI 0.58–1.14; I² = 45%). Tumors were thicker (MD = 0.24 mm, 95% CI 0.02–0.47; I² = 92%) and more frequently ulcerated (OR = 1.29, 95% CI 1.15–1.44; I² = 31%). Nodular melanoma, an aggressive subtype, became more common (OR = 1.34, 95% CI 1.08–1.67; I² = 81%), whereas superficial spreading, acral lentiginous, and lentigo-maligna subtypes showed no significant change. All the key findings persisted in good-quality-only analyses. Conclusion COVID-19-related service disruptions were associated with fewer melanoma diagnoses but a shift toward older patients and biologically adverse tumor features, signaling delayed detection at the population level. Strengthening resilient, rapid-access skin cancer pathways and integrating tele-dermatology with triaged in-person assessment are public-health priorities for future crises. Trial registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42022361569.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.043
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.132
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementFrench-language works237,207