Trial reportThe British journal of dermatology2021
Biopsy outperforms reflectance confocal microscopy in diagnosing and subtyping basal cell carcinoma: results and experiences from a randomized controlled multicentre trial.
Trial report in The British journal of dermatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dermoscopy-guided high-frequency ultrasound: Principles and applications in dermatology.JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Line-Field Confocal Optical Coherence Tomography for Basal Cell Carcinoma: A Prospective Study.Cancers · 2026Article
- [In vivo reflectance confocal microscopy and keratinocyte skin cancer : Reflectance confocal microscopy and artificial intelligence].Dermatologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- FDA and EMA-approved noninvasive imaging techniques for basal cell carcinoma subtyping: A systematic review.JAAD international · 2025Review
- Case Report: Modified surgery combined with photodynamic therapy for treating basal cell carcinoma in special facial regions.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Recent advances in label-free imaging techniques based on nonlinear optical microscopy to reveal the heterogeneity of the tumor microenvironment.Biophysical reviews · 2024Review
- Line-Field Confocal Optical Coherence Tomography for the Diagnosis of Skin Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Revisiting the standards of cancer detection and therapy alongside their comparison to modern methods.World journal of methodology · 2024Review
- Exploring the Utilization of Imaging Modalities in the Diagnosis of Basal Cell Carcinoma: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2024Article
- Combined Carbon Dioxide Laser with Photodynamic Therapy for Nodular Basal Cell Carcinoma Monitored by Reflectance Confocal Microscopy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Confocal Microscopy for Diagnosis and Management of Cutaneous Malignancies: Clinical Impacts and Innovation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Skin Cancer Pathobiology at a Glance: A Focus on Imaging Techniques and Their Potential for Improved Diagnosis and Surveillance in Clinical Cohorts.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Emerging Minimally Invasive Technologies for the Detection of Skin Cancer.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) is a noninvasive method for skin assessment, allowing entire lesion evaluation up to the papillary dermis. RCM is a potentially attractive alternative to punch biopsy (PB) in basal cell carcinoma (BCC).
objectivesTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of RCM vs. PB in diagnosing and subtyping BCC, and to study patient satisfaction and preferences.
methodsPatients with a clinically suspected primary BCC were randomized between RCM and biopsy. Conventional surgical excision or follow-up were used as reference. Sensitivity and specificity for BCC diagnosis and subtyping were calculated for both methods. BCC subtype was stratified based on clinical relevance: aggressive (infiltrative/micronodular) vs. nonaggressive (superficial/nodular) histopathological subtype and superficial vs. nonsuperficial BCC. Data on patient satisfaction and preferences were collected using a questionnaire and a contingent valuation method.
resultsSensitivity for BCC diagnosis was high and similar for both methods (RCM 99·0% vs. biopsy 99·0%; P = 1·0). Specificity for BCC diagnosis was lower for RCM (59·1% vs. 100·0%; P < 0·001). Sensitivity for aggressive BCC subtypes was lower for RCM (33·3% vs. 77·3%; P = 0·003). Sensitivity for nonsuperficial BCC was not significantly different (RCM 88·9% vs. biopsy 91·0%; P = 0·724). Patient satisfaction and preferences were good and highly comparable for both methods.
conclusionsBiopsy outperforms RCM in diagnosing and subtyping clinically suspected primary BCC. This outcome does not support routine clinical implementation of RCM, as a replacement for PBs in this patient group.
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.