Archive

ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Flawed study a disservice to PAs | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Flawed study a disservice to PAs

Tribune-Review
| Sunday, May 20, 2018 9:00 p.m

The story “Study: Physician assistants less accurate in diagnosing early skin cancer” highlights a fundamentally flawed study, led by Dr. Laura Ferris and published in JAMA Dermatology, that displays physician assistants (PAs) in a bad light.

The study looks at far too few clinicians to draw any serious conclusions and cherry-picks clinical decisions in ways clearly designed to poorly depict PAs. Specific limitations in the study include a small sample size of only 15 PAs and 15 dermatologists; that PAs had an average of 6.6 years less clinical experience than the dermatologists (which was not statistically controlled for in the analysis); that PAs may have performed more biopsies at the request of their supervising dermatologist (which is not captured on records) or due to requests by patients for cosmetic purposes; and that patients with a history of melanoma may have simply requested to visit the dermatologist rather than the PA.

The fact is, based upon the wealth of research, that PAs provide cost-effective and high-quality care throughout Pennsylvania and across the nation. This study and the flawed conclusions drawn from it provide a disservice to the practice of dermatology and dermatology patients.

Jil Swanson

Washington, Pa.

The writer is president of Pennsylvania Dermatology Physician Assistants ( padermpa.org ).

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.