Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28890988›Full record

ReviewLasers in medical science2017

The changing landscape of dermatology practice: melanoma and pump-probe laser microscopy.

Charles J Puza, Warren S Warren, Paul J Mosca

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Lasers in medical science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 47% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Charles J PuzaDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. Charles.puza@duke.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-6661-912X
Warren S Warren
Paul J MoscaDuke University, Department of Surgery, Durham, NC, USA.
Duke University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To present current melanoma diagnosis, staging, prognosis, and treatment algorithms and how recent advances in laser pump-probe microscopy will fill in the gaps in our clinical understanding. Expert opinion and significantly cited articles identified in SCOPUS were used in conjunction with a pubmed database search on Melanoma practice guidelines from the last 10 years. Significant advances in melanoma treatment have been made over the last decade. However, proper treatment algorithm and prognostic information per melanoma stage remain controversial. The next step for providers will involve the identification of patient population(s) that can benefit from recent advances. One method of identifying potential patients is through new laser imaging techniques. Pump-probe laser microscopy has been shown to correctly identify nevi from melanoma and furthermore stratify melanoma by aggressiveness. The recent development of effective adjuvant therapies for melanoma is promising and should be utilized on appropriate patient populations that can potentially be identified using pump-probe laser microscopy.

Indexed as

DermatologyHumansMelanomaMicroscopy, ConfocalPrognosisRisk FactorsSkin NeoplasmsDermatologyLaser pump-probe microscopyMelanomaMicroscopyOncology

Identifiers

PMID28890988
OpenAlexW2756004999

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.