had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

coronavirus disease 2019 has emerged as a global public health emergency. Countries across the world are rapidly reporting new infections and case fatalities. 1 As the COVID-19 pandemic rapidly evolves, understanding symptoms and clinical characteristics of affected persons is essential. Patients with COVID-19 often present with fever, cough, and fatigue, although organ-specific symptoms have been reported. 2,3 The primary aim of this study was to systematically review published and preprint articles describing cutaneous symptoms associated with COVID-19 presentation.Literature for this review was identified by searching the PubMed/MEDLINE database for published articles and the medRxiv database for preprint ones. Search terms ''COVID-19,'' ''2019-nCoV,'' and Fig 1. PRISMA diagram for inclusion of records in systematic review.

Our goal is to inform ongoing public health policy on the design and communication of COVID-19 social distancing measures to maximize compliance. We assessed the US publics early experience with the COVID-19 crisis during the period when shelter-in-place orders were widely implemented to understand non-compliance with those orders, sentiment about the crisis, and to compare across age categories associated with different levels of risk. We posted our survey on Twitter, Facebook, and NextDoor on March 14th to March 23rd that included 21 questions including demographics, impact on daily life, actions taken, and difficulties faced. We analyzed the free-text responses to the impact question using LIWC, a computational natural language processing tool, and performed a thematic content analysis of the reasons people gave for non-compliance with social distancing orders. Stanford Universitys IRB approved the study. In 9 days, we collected a total of 20,734 responses. 6,573 individuals provided a response (≥30 words) to the question, Tell us how the coronavirus crisis is impacting your life. Our data (Figure 1) show that younger people (18-31) are more emotionally negative, self-centered, and less concerned with family, while middle-aged people are group-oriented (32-44) and focused on family (32-64) (all p values < .05 corrected for multiple comparisons). Unsurprisingly, the oldest and most at-risk group (65+) are more focused on biological terms (e.g., health-related topics), but were surprisingly low in anxiety and high in emotionally positive terms relative to those at lower risk. We also content-analyzed 7,355 responses (kappas > .75) to the question, What are the reasons you are not self-isolating more? Of these participants, 39.8% reported not being compliant, with the youngest group (18-31) having the lowest compliance rate (52.4%) compared to the other age groups (all > 60%; all p values < .01). Table 1 describes the seven primary themes for non-compliance. Non-essential work requirements, concerns about mental and physical health, and the belief that other precautions were sufficient were the most common reasons, although other rationales included wanting to continue everyday activities and beliefs that society is over-reacting. Childcare was an important concern for a subset of respondents. Overall, our findings suggest that public health messages should focus on young people and 1) address their negative affect, 2) refocus their self-orientation by emphasizing the importance of individual behavior to group-level health outcomes, and 3) target the specific rationales that different people have regarding the pandemic to maximize compliance with social distancing.

No abstract

IMPORTANCE Melanoma in situ (MIS) is increasing in incidence, and expert consensus opinion recommends surgical excision for therapeutic management. Currently, wide local excision (WLE) is the standard of care. However, Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is now used to treat a growing subset of individuals with MIS. During MMS, unlike WLE, the entire cutaneous surgical margin is evaluated intraoperatively for tumor cells.OBJECTIVE To assess the outcomes of patients with MIS treated with MMS compared with those treated with WLE. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective review of a prospective database. The study cohort consisted of 662 patients with MIS treated with MMS or WLE per standard of care in dermatology and surgery (general surgery, otolaryngology, plastics, oculoplastics, surgical oncology) at an academic tertiary care referral center from January 1, 1978, to December 31, 2013, with follow-up through 2015. EXPOSURE Mohs micrographic surgery or WLE. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Recurrence, overall survival, and melanoma-specific survival. RESULTS There were 277 patients treated with MMS (mean [SD] age, 64.0 [13.1] years; 62.1% male) and 385 treated with WLE (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [15.6] years; P < .001 for age; 54.8% male). Median follow-up was 8.6 (range, 0.2-37) years. Compared with WLE, MMS was used more frequently on the face (222 [80.2%] vs 141 [36.7%]) and scalp and neck (23 [8.3%] vs 26 [6.8%]; P < .001). The median (range) year of diagnosis was 2008 for the MMS group vs 2003MMS group vs (1978MMS group vs -2013 for the WLE group (P < .001). Overall recurrence rates were 5 (1.8%) in the MMS group and 22 (5.7%) in the WLE group (P = .07). Mean (SD) time to recurrence after MMS was 3.91 (4.4) years, and after WLE, 4.45 (2.7) years (P = .73). The 5-year recurrence rate was 1.1% in the MMS group and 4.1% in the WLE group (P = .07). For WLE-treated tumors, the surgical margin taken was greater for tumors that recurred compared with tumors that did not recur (P = .003). Five-year overall survival for MMS was 92% and for WLE was 94% (P = .28). Melanoma-specific mortality for the MMS group was 2 vs 13 patients for the WLE group, with mean (SD) survival of 6.5 (4.8) and 6.1 (0.8) years, respectively (P = .77).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE No significant differences were found in the recurrence rate, overall survival, or melanoma-specific survival of patients with MIS treated with MMS compared with WLE.