ArticleEye (London, England)2023
Survey of ophthalmic imaging use to assess risk of progression of choroidal nevus to melanoma.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of MOLES and MelCancers · 2026Article
- Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator-1 (PGC-1) family in physiological and pathophysiological process and diseases.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2024Review
- Choroidal Nevus Features Associated with Subspecialty Referral.Ophthalmology. Retina · 2023Article
- Choroidal Melanocytic Hamartoma.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe aim of this study was to ascertain the use of ocular imaging and the updated screening criteria in the evaluation of choroidal nevus across the United States.
methodsSixty ophthalmologists completed an anonymous 21-question survey addressing their use of the screening criteria for evaluating choroidal nevi, as well as their use of ultrasonography (US), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and autofluorescence (AF) in daily practice.
resultsThe majority of respondents were from the Northeast (55%), worked in private practice (83%), and practiced general ophthalmology (42%). The 2009 criteria TFSOM-UHHD was used by 39 (65%) respondents, while the 2019 criteria TFSOM-DIM was used by 29 (48%) respondents. Compared to anterior segment ophthalmologists, posterior segment ophthalmologists were more likely to use the TFSOM-UHHD criteria (94% vs. 53%, OR = 13.9, p = 0.014), the TFSOM-DIM criteria (88% vs. 33%, OR = 15.5, p < 0.001), fundus AF (82% vs. 19%, OR = 20.4, p < 0.001), and US (94% vs. 42%, OR = 22.2, p = 0.004) in daily practice.
conclusionsFrom the survey of current practice patterns, we learned that there is a general trend of underutilization of the proper imaging modalities - and thus the criteria - in evaluating choroidal nevus. More education about ocular cancer and its screening could improve patient outcomes in the future.
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.