ReviewDer Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete2015
[Confocal laser scanning microscopy].
Review in Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent Advances in Fluorescent Nanoparticles for Stimulated Emission Depletion Imaging.Biosensors · 2024Review
- Known and new facts on basal cell carcinoma.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2021Article
- Towards an Optical Biopsy during Visceral Surgical Interventions.Visceral medicine · 2020Review
- Non-invasive imaging in dermatology and the unique potential of raster-scan optoacoustic mesoscopy.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2019Review
- Immunofluorescence of Microtubule Assemblies in Amphibian Oocytes and Early Embryos.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2019Article
- [Methods for measuring skin aging].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) allows the in vivo evaluation of melanocytic and nonmelanocytic skin tumours with high sensitivity and specificity. RCM represents an optical imaging technique, which enables us to examine the skin at high resolution. Today, RCM represents not only an interesting tool for dermatologic research but has also been introduced as a diagnostic tool in every day clinical practice. As such, RCM is applied for improvement of skin cancer diagnosis adjunct to clinical and dermatoscopic examination. In combination with dermatoscopy RCM has shown an increased specificity with similar sensitivity. In this regard RCM helps to decrease the rate of unnecessary biopsies of benign lesions. Despite its use in dermatooncology RCM may also be used for diagnosis and monitoring of inflammatory diseases. Future developments include technical improvements, teledermatology solutions and the application of ex vivo RCM in Moh's micrographic surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25917282What 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.