Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17208677›Full record

ReviewCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2006

Imaging of metastatic melanoma.

D Michael King

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Quantum dot: a next-generation tool for cancer diagnosis at an early stage.Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2025
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Metastatic melanoma to the testis.BJR case reports · 2018
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Incidental pelvic lesions in the oncology patient.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2011
    Review
  13. Anatomical and molecular imaging of skin cancer.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2008
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

D Michael KingDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging, Royal Marsden Foundation Trust, London, UK. mike.king@rmh.nhs.uk
Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cutaneous cancer is now the most common human malignancy and in the UK malignant melanoma comprises 11% of all skin cancers. Eighty percent of malignant melanoma is thought to be related to excessive exposure to sunlight, particularly in childhood. Although the least common skin cancer, malignant melanoma is the most deadly. In 1999 it killed over 1600 individuals in the UK and by 2004, in the USA, 55,100 new cases were anticipated. The incidence of this disease is increasing more rapidly than any other malignancy and in males there was a four-fold increase in incidence between 1971 and 1997 whilst there was a three-fold increase in women. Cutaneous melanoma is arguably the most widely metastasising neoplastic disease and it has a particularly unpredictable pattern of spread. Imaging has an important role in the management of this disease as the demonstration and delineation of metastases influences management and prognosis.

Indexed as

AdultChildFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMelanomaNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasm StagingPositron-Emission TomographySkin NeoplasmsTomography, X-Ray ComputedUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID17208677
PMCPMC1766563
OpenAlexW2110969288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.