Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28667573›Full record

ReviewCurrent urology reports2017

Urologic Dermatology: a Review.

Andrew W Stamm, Kathleen C Kobashi, Ksenija B Stefanovic

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2017. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Patient presentation, differential diagnosis, and management of penile lesions.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2019
    Review
  5. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Andrew W StammVirginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Kathleen C KobashiVirginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Ksenija B StefanovicVirginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA. Ksenija.Stefanovic@virginiamason.org.
Virginia Mason Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewGenital dermatology represents a challenge to many providers. Though dermatologic lesions involving the genitalia may present to any of a number of practices, ranging from primary care to urology, gynecology, and dermatology, few training programs provide significant training regarding the diagnosis and management of genital dermatologic lesions. The purpose of this review is to provide urologists with an overview of common genital dermatological lesions that may be encountered in a clinic. The review also provides a guide to how to approach these conditions. RECENT

findingsThis manuscript summarizes the most common categories of genital dermatologic lesions, starting with normal variants and progressing to a review of contagious conditions, premalignant lesions, and malignant lesions. In cases in which a lesion does not definitively belong to one of these categories, an algorithmic approach to making a diagnosis may be helpful to narrow the differential diagnosis. The most common benign genital growths include cysts, syringomas, seborrheic keratosis, pearly papules, and Fordyce spots. Contagious lesions, such as herpes, syphilis, scabies, or molluscum contagiosum, should be treated immediately before complications or transmission can occur. Inflammatory genital lesions are very diverse in etiology and presentation but are the most common genital lesions in urological clinical practice. This category of lesions can be approached by dividing them into non-erythematous and erythematous (scaling and non-scaling) lesions. Given the potential evolution of the challenging category of premalignant genital lesions, proper recognition and early biopsy play an important role. Premalignant lesions can be broadly classified into two categories: those not related to HPV infection and those that are related to HPV, including erythroplasia of Queyrat (EQ), Bowen's disease, Bowenoid papulosis, vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN), and giant condyloma. Herein, contemporary nomenclature and proper evaluation and management of premalignant lesions are reviewed which provide safe and efficacious outcomes for patients. Finally, malignant genital lesions, though rare, must be recognized early and addressed correctly. Squamous cell carcinoma represents 95% of penile and approximately 90% of vulvar and vaginal malignancies, and diagnosis and management can be challenging and require proper referral to an oncologist. Genital dermatology is a challenging field marked by diagnostic difficulty and management challenges. This manuscript provides an overview of genitourinary dermatologic lesions in an effort to provide clinicians with a framework with which to approach the evaluation of these various conditions that will facilitate proper consideration of the differential diagnoses and help the urologist distinguish between normal, benign, premalignant, and malignant lesions.

Indexed as

FemaleGenitalia, FemaleGenitalia, MaleHumansMaleSkin DiseasesDermatologyGenital dermatologyLesionsUrologic dermatology

Identifiers

PMID28667573
OpenAlexW2733846687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.