ReviewMemo2014
Follow-up in melanoma patients.
Review in Memo, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Conventional versus Reduced-Frequency Follow-Up in Early-Stage Melanoma Survivors: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Pooled it
- Melanoma stimulates the proteolytic activity of HaCaT keratinocytes.Cell communication and signaling : CCS · 2022Article
- Serum markers improve current prediction of metastasis development in early-stage melanoma patients: a machine learning-based study.Molecular oncology · 2020Article
- An indirect treatment comparison of the efficacy of pembrolizumab versus competing regimens for the adjuvant treatment of stage III melanoma.Journal of drug assessment · 2019Article
- Surveillance After a Previous Cutaneous Melanoma Diagnosis: A Scoping Review of Melanoma Follow-Up Guidelines.Journal of cutaneous medicine and surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Due to lack of evidence from prospective clinical trials, the diagnostic procedures, their frequency, as well as the length of the follow-up period in cutaneous melanoma patients should be based on the individual risk of disease recurrence, which is strongly dependent on the stage of disease at the time of diagnosis. In the paper we propose the current recommendations for follow-up strategy. Nowadays, new effective treatment options with biological agents justify the closer monitoring of high risk melanoma patients.
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.