ArticleActa dermato-venereologica2021
Visual Impact of Large and Giant Congenital Naevi: Comparison of Surgical Scars with Naevi Before Surgery.
Article in Acta dermato-venereologica, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis of scar formation and depression and anxiety symptoms in patients after cardiac surgery.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Pooled it
- Updates in the Management of Congenital Melanocytic Nevi.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Psychosocial health and psychological adjustment in adolescents and young adults with congenital melanocytic nevi: Analysis of self-reports.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgical attempts to remove large/giant congenital melanocytic naevi (LGCMN) are supported mainly by the theoretical improvement in patients' self-image; however such surgery can result in unaesthetic scarring. We hypothesize that difference in appearance itself has an impact, and hence surgery cannot negate this impact. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to explore how LGCMN and scarring are perceived by non-affected people. We surveyed the visual impact on 1,015 health and non-health professionals working in a university hospital. Participants were assigned to 1 of 3 surveys, which, based on photographs of children: (i) assessed the visual impact of LGCMN; (ii) the visual impact of scarring; (iii) compared the impact of LGCMN and scarring. Feelings and perceptions evoked by images of children, either with LGCMN or with scarring, were remarkably similar. However, when the images of the same child (with LGCMN or scarring) were shown together, respondents showed significantly increased preference for scarring.
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.