ArticleJournal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV2018
Interrater and intrarater agreement of confocal microscopy imaging in diagnosing and subtyping basal cell carcinoma.
Article in Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Differentiation Between Benign and Malignant Pigmented Skin Tumours Using Bedside Diagnostic Imaging Technologies: A Pilot Study.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2022Article
- A Retrospective Study of the Diagnostic Accuracy of In Vivo Reflectance Confocal Microscopy for Basal Cell Carcinoma Diagnosis and Subtyping.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) imaging can be used to diagnose and subtype basal cell carcinoma (BCC) but relies on individual morphologic pattern recognition that might vary among users.
objectivesWe assessed the inter-rater and intrarater agreement of RCM in correctly diagnosing and subtyping BCC.
methodsIn this prospective study, we evaluated the inter-rater and intrarater agreement of RCM on BCC presence and subtype among three raters with varying experience who independently assessed static images of 48 RCM cases twice with four-week interval (T1 and T2). Histopathologic confirmation of presence and subtype of BCC from surgical excision specimen was defined as the reference standard.
resultsThe inter-rater agreement of RCM for BCC presence showed an agreement of 82% at T1 and 84% at T2. The agreements for subtyping BCC were lower (52% for T1 and 47% for T2). The intrarater agreement of RCM for BCC presence showed an observed agreement that varied from 79% to 92%. The observed agreements for subtyping varied from 56% to 71%.
conclusionsIn conclusion, our results show that RCM is reliable in correctly diagnosing BCC based on the assessment of static RCM images. RCM could potentially play an important role in BCC management if accurate subtyping will be achieved. Therefore, future clinical studies on reliability and specific RCM features for BCC subtypes are required.
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.