Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32363095›Full record

ArticleDermatology practical & conceptual2020

In Vivo Reflectance Confocal Microscopy in General Dermatology: How to Choose the Right Indication.

Chiara Franceschini, Flavia Persechino, Marco Ardigò

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Dermatology practical & conceptual, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. In Vivo Microscopic Features of Acne vulgaris Revealed via LC-OCT.Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI) · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. SkinspanMayo Clinic proceedings · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chiara FranceschiniClinical Dermatology Department, San Gallicano Dermatological Institute (IRCCS), Rome, Italy.
Flavia PersechinoClinical Dermatology Department, San Gallicano Dermatological Institute (IRCCS), Rome, Italy.
Marco ArdigòClinical Dermatology Department, San Gallicano Dermatological Institute (IRCCS), Rome, Italy.
San Gallicano Hospital · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) is a high-resolution, noninvasive imaging technique being increasingly used as an aid to diagnosis in the dermatology setting. RCM is applied in the diagnosis of both melanoma and nonmelanoma skin tumors, but also in the interpretation and management of inflammatory skin diseases. Two different devices with different designs for specific indications are available in the market: a static and a handheld probe. Several clinical presentations of the lesion could affect the examination, such as the presence of ulceration or hyperkeratosis; moreover, the anatomical site can drive the probe selection as well as the effective indication to RCM examination. In this review article, indications for the use of RCM are described in detail with a schematic approach for practical purposes.

Indexed as

inflammatory skin diseaseslimitsmelanomanonmelanoma skin cancerreflectance confocal microscopystatic and handled probe

Identifiers

PMID32363095
PMCPMC7190461
OpenAlexW3022691353

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.