ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings2011
Mayo Clinic consensus recommendations for the depth of excision in primary cutaneous melanoma.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Calibration of fluorescence imaging for tumor surgical margin delineation: multistep registration of fluorescence and histological images.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2019Article
- Essential Components of Melanoma Histopathological Reporting: The Surgical Oncologist's Perspective.Journal of skin cancer · 2018Review
- Oncolytic virotherapy including Rigvir and standard therapies in malignant melanoma.Oncolytic virotherapy · 2017Review
- Is a Wider Margin (2 cm vs. 1 cm) for a 1.01-2.0 mm Melanoma Necessary?Annals of surgical oncology · 2016Article
- Controversies in the diagnosis and treatment of early cutaneous melanoma.Journal of medicine and lifeReview
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Currently, no data from randomized controlled clinical trials are available to guide the depth of resection for intermediate-thickness primary cutaneous melanoma. Thus, we hypothesized that substantial variability exists in this aspect of surgical care. We have summarized the literature regarding depth of resection and report the results of our survey of surgeons who treat melanoma. Most of the 320 respondents resected down to, but did not include, the muscular fascia (extremity, 71%; trunk, 66%; and head and neck, 62%). However, significant variation exists. We identified variability in our own practice and have elected to standardize this common aspect of routine surgical care across our institution. In light of the lack of evidence to support resection of the deep muscular fascia, we have elected to preserve the muscular fascia as a matter of routine, except when a deep primary melanoma or thin subcutaneous tissue dictates otherwise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.