ArticleAnais brasileiros de dermatologia
Histologic review of melanomas by pathologists trained in melanocytic lesions may change therapeutic approach in up to 41.9% of cases.
Article in Anais brasileiros de dermatologia. 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.
- Mel-DEPTHS: a benchmark dataset for epidermis and tumor segmentation for melanoma staging.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Article
- The Implications of a Dermatopathologist's Report on Melanoma Diagnosis and Treatment.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Second Diagnostic Opinion by Experienced Dermatopathologists in the Setting of a Referral Regional Melanoma Unit Significantly Improves the Clinical Management of Patients With Cutaneous Melanoma.Frontiers in medicine · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Melanoma Guidelines of the Brazilian Dermatology Society recommend histologic review by pathologists trained in melanocytic lesions whenever possible. Out of 145 melanoma cases identified at a private clinic in São Paulo/Brazil, 31 that had been submited to histologic review were studied to evaluate whether revision had led to change in therapeutic approach.. Differences in original/reviewed reports were found in 58.1% (n=18) of the reports, leading to changes in therapeutic approach in 41.9% (n=13). Change in diagnosis was observed in 6 out of 31 (19,3%) cases. These findings suggest that second opinion by pathologists trained in melanocytic lesions is likely to show significant differences from the original report.
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.