Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30190904›Full record

ReviewMelanoma management2017

Lymph node dissection for melanoma: where do we stand?

Madalyn G Neuwirth, Edmund K Bartlett, Giorgos C Karakousis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Melanoma management, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 97% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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.

Madalyn G NeuwirthDepartment of Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Edmund K BartlettDepartment of Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Giorgos C KarakousisDepartment of Surgery, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The extent and timing of regional lymphadenectomy and its role in patients with clinically localized primary melanoma has been the subject of considerable debate. While therapeutic lymphadenectomy for clinically positive nodes is uniformly accepted, the benefit of regional lymphadenectomy in patients with clinically uninvolved lymph nodes potentially harboring micrometastatic disease is less clear. Efforts to better select patients for complete regional lymphadenectomy after sentinel lymph node biopsy are underway. The future holds the promise of more stringent selection criteria and perhaps the identification of subgroups of patients for which a therapeutic benefit may be realized. Moreover, novel sensitive radiological techniques for detecting

Indexed as

lymphadenectomylymph node dissectionmelanomasentinel lymph node biopsy

Identifiers

PMID30190904
PMCPMC6094624
OpenAlexW2594750367

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.