ArticleJAMA dermatology2016
Use of Digitally Stained Multimodal Confocal Mosaic Images to Screen for Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer.
Article in JAMA dermatology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Diagnostic Accuracy of Ex Vivo Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy for Basal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of two-photon fluorescence microscopy in Mohs surgery of basal cell carcinomas.Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 2026Article
- The Diagnostic Accuracy of Ex Vivo Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy for Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Ex Vivo Confocal Microscopy for Surgical Margin Assessment of High-Risk Nodular Basal Cell Carcinoma.Cancers · 2025Article
- Virtual Staining of Nonfixed Tissue Histology.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2024Review
- A Feasibility Study for Immediate Histological Assessment of Various Skin Biopsies Using Ex Vivo Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Ex vivo confocal microscopy for surgical margin assessment: A histology-compared study on 109 specimens.Skin health and disease · 2022Article
- Classification of Basal Cell Carcinoma in Ex Vivo Confocal Microscopy Images from Freshly Excised Tissues Using a Deep Learning Algorithm.The Journal of investigative dermatology · 2022Article
- An international 3-center training and reading study to assess basal cell carcinoma surgical margins with ex vivo fluorescence confocal microscopy.Journal of cutaneous pathology · 2021Article
- Deep learning automated pathology in ex vivo microscopy.Biomedical optics express · 2021Article
- Exploring the utility of Deep Red Anthraquinone 5 for digital staining of ex vivo confocal micrographs of optically sectioned skin.Journal of biophotonics · 2021Article
- Ex Vivo Microscopy: A Promising Next-Generation Digital Microscopy Tool for Surgical Pathology Practice.Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine · 2019Review
- Emerging imaging technologies in dermatology: Part II: Applications and limitations.Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · 2019Review
- Skin Imaging Using Ultrasound Imaging, Optical Coherence Tomography, Confocal Microscopy, and Two-Photon Microscopy in Cutaneous Oncology.Frontiers in medicine · 2019Review
- Updates on the Management of Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer (NMSC).Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Review
- Line scanning, stage scanning confocal microscope (LSSSCM).Biomedical optics express · 2017Article
- Implementation of fluorescence confocal mosaicking microscopy by "early adopter" Mohs surgeons and dermatologists: recent progress.Journal of biomedical optics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Confocal microscopy has the potential to provide rapid bedside pathologic analysis, but clinical adoption has been limited in part by the need for physician retraining to interpret grayscale images. Digitally stained confocal mosaics (DSCMs) mimic the colors of routine histologic specimens and may increase adaptability of this technology. Objective: To evaluate the accuracy and precision of 3 physicians using DSCMs before and after training to detect basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in Mohs micrographic surgery fresh-tissue specimens. Design: This retrospective study used 133 DSCMs from 64 Mohs tissue excisions, which included clear margins, residual BCC, or residual SCC. Discarded tissue from Mohs surgical excisions from the dermatologic surgery units at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Oregon Health & Science University were collected for confocal imaging from 2006 to 2011. Final data analysis and interpretation took place between 2014 and 2016. Two Mohs surgeons and a Mohs fellow, who were blinded to the correlating gold standard frozen section diagnoses, independently reviewed the DSCMs for residual nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) before and after a brief training session (about 5 minutes). The 2 assessments were separated by a 6-month washout period. Main Outcomes and Measures: Diagnostic accuracy was characterized by sensitivity and specificity of detecting NMSC using DSCMs vs standard frozen histopathologic specimens. The diagnostic precision was calculated based on interobserver agreement and κ scores. Paired 2-sample t tests were used for comparative means analyses before and after training. Results: The average respective sensitivities and specificities of detecting NMSC were 90% (95% CI, 89%-91%) and 79% (95% CI, 52%-100%) before training and 99% (95% CI, 99%-99%) (P = .001) and 93% (95% CI, 90%-96%) (P = .18) after training; for BCC, they were 83% (95% CI, 59%-100%) and 92% (95% CI, 81%-100%) before training and 98% (95% CI, 98%-98%) (P = .18) and 97% (95% CI, 95%-100%) (P = .15) after training; for SCC, they were 73% (95% CI, 65%-81%) and 89% (95% CI, 72%-100%) before training and 100% (P = .004) and 98% (95% CI, 95%-100%) (P = .21) after training. The pretraining interobserver agreement was 72% (κ = 0.58), and the posttraining interobserver agreement was 98% (κ = 0.97) (P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: Diagnostic use of DSCMs shows promising correlation to frozen histologic analysis, but image quality was affected by variations in image contrast and mosaic-stitching artifact. With training, physicians were able to read DSCMs with significantly improved accuracy and precision to detect NMSC.
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.