ReviewFrontiers in medicine2018
Ultrasound and Infrared-Based Imaging Modalities for Diagnosis and Management of Cutaneous Diseases.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Role of FDG-PET in the Evaluation of Hidradenitis Suppurativa: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- 1.7-Micron Optical Coherence Tomography Angiography for Characterization of Skin Lesions-A Feasibility Study.IEEE transactions on medical imaging · 2021Article
- Non-contrast-enhanced 3-Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using Surface-coil and Sonography for Assessment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Lesions.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2020Review
- Utility of a gel stand-off pad in the detection of Doppler signal on focal nodular lesions of the skin.Journal of ultrasound · 2020Article
- A Scoping Review of Non-invasive Imaging Modalities in Dermatological Disease: Potential Novel Biomarkers in Hidradenitis Suppurativa.Frontiers in 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-invasive bedside imaging tools are becoming more prevalent for assessing cutaneous lesions. Ultrasound used at specific frequencies allows us to assess margins of lesions to minimize the extent of the biopsy that is performed and improve cosmetic outcomes. Vascularity, seen on Doppler ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound, and stiffness, assessed on tissue elastography, can help differentiate between benign and malignant lesions for clinicians to be more judicious in deciding whether to biopsy. Moreover, research has shown the efficacy in using ultrasound in monitoring flares of hidradenitis suppurativa, a disease affecting apocrine gland-rich areas of the body, for which the current gold standard involves examining and scoring inflammatory lesions with the naked eye. Infrared-based modalities have also been on the uptrend to aid in clinical decision-making regarding suspiciousness of lesions. Reflectance confocal microscopy has lateral resolution that is comparable to histopathology and it has been shown to be an appropriate adjunctive tool to dermoscopy, specifically when evaluating melanomas. Optical coherence tomography has utility in determining lesion thickness because of its depth penetration, and spectrophotometric intracutaneous analysis is becoming more popular as a tool that can be used by general practitioners to know when to refer to dermatology regarding worrisome pigmented lesions. Strides have been made to incorporate electrical impedance spectroscopy alongside dermoscopy in decision-making regarding excision, although the evidence for its use in the clincial setting remains inconclusive. This paper reviews the efficacy and drawbacks of these techniques in the field of dermatology and suggests future directions.
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.