Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32066861›Full record

ReviewModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2020

Through the looking glass and what you find there: making sense of comparative genomic hybridization and fluorescence in situ hybridization for melanoma diagnosis.

Jayson Miedema, Aleodor A Andea

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. FluorescenceExperimental and therapeutic medicine · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jayson MiedemaDepartments of Dermatology and Pathology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Aleodor A AndeaDepartments of Pathology and Dermatology, Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. andeaa@med.umich.edu.
Michigan Medicine · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Melanoma is the leading cause of death among cutaneous neoplasms. Best outcome relies on early detection and accurate pathologic diagnosis. For the great majority of melanocytic tumors, histopathologic examination can reliably distinguish nevi from melanomas. However, there is a subset of melanocytic tumors that cannot be definitively classified as benign or malignant using histopathological criteria alone. These tumors are usually diagnosed using terms that imply various degrees of uncertainty in regards to their malignant potential and create the possibility for over or undertreatment. For such tumors, additional ancillary tests would be beneficial in adjudicating a more definitive diagnosis. In recent years, DNA-based molecular ancillary tests, specifically comparative genomic hybridization and fluorescence in situ hybridization, have been developed to help guide the diagnosis of ambiguous melanocytic proliferations. This study will present an updated overview of these two major ancillary tests, which are currently being used in clinical practice to assist in the diagnosis of challenging melanocytic neoplasms.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorComparative Genomic HybridizationHumansIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceMelanomaSkin NeoplasmsBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID32066861
OpenAlexW3006557661

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.