Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28264830›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2017

Diagnosing malignant melanoma in ambulatory care: a systematic review of clinical prediction rules.

Emma Harrington, Barbara Clyne, Nieneke Wesseling, Harkiran Sandhu, Laura Armstrong, Holly Bennett, Tom Fahey

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Visual inspection for diagnosing cutaneous melanoma in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Melanoma Diagnosis Using Deep Learning and Fuzzy Logic.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

7 authors.

Emma HarringtonHRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Barbara ClyneHRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Nieneke WesselingMedical School, Radboud University, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Harkiran SandhuHRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Laura ArmstrongHRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Holly BennettHRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Tom FaheyHRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin 2, Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMalignant melanoma has high morbidity and mortality rates. Early diagnosis improves prognosis. Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) can be used to stratify patients with symptoms of suspected malignant melanoma to improve early diagnosis. We conducted a systematic review of CPRs for melanoma diagnosis in ambulatory care.

designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, PROSPERO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library and SCOPUS was conducted in May 2015, using combinations of keywords and medical subject headings (MeSH) terms. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Studies deriving and validating, validating or assessing the impact of a CPR for predicting melanoma diagnosis in ambulatory care were included. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment were guided by the CHARMS checklist.

resultsFrom 16 334 studies reviewed, 51 were included, validating the performance of 24 unique CPRs. Three impact analysis studies were identified. Five studies were set in primary care. The most commonly evaluated CPRs were the ABCD, more than one or uneven distribution of Colour, or a large (greater than 6 mm) Diameter (ABCD) dermoscopy rule (at a cut-point of >4.75; 8 studies; pooled sensitivity 0.85, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.93, specificity 0.72, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.78) and the 7-point dermoscopy checklist (at a cut-point of ≥1 recommending ruling in melanoma; 11 studies; pooled sensitivity 0.77, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88, specificity 0.80, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.92). The methodological quality of studies varied.

conclusionsAt their recommended cut-points, the ABCD dermoscopy rule is more useful for ruling out melanoma than the 7-point dermoscopy checklist. A focus on impact analysis will help translate melanoma risk prediction rules into useful tools for clinical practice.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesAmbulatory CareHumansMelanomaSensitivity and SpecificityClinical prediction rulesMelanomaPRIMARY CARESystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28264830
PMCPMC5353325

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.