ArticleDermatology and therapy2022
Body Site Distribution of Acquired Melanocytic Naevi and Associated Characteristics in the General Population of Caucasian Adults: A Scoping Review.
Article in Dermatology and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systemic treatment for a young patient with stage IV melanoma: A case report.Oncology letters · 2026Article
- Cataract Prevalence in Patients with Cutaneous Melanoma in Lithuanian Population.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Systematic Review of Nevus Counting and Reporting Methodologies in Contemporary Studies of the General Population.Dermatology practical & conceptual · 2024Review
- Article
- Common Benign Melanocytic and Non-Melanocytic Skin Tumors among the Elderly: Results of the Graz Study on Health and Aging.Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Clinical and dermoscopic patterns of acquired melanocytic nevi in children and adolescents: a cross-sectional study from Turkey.Anais brasileiros de dermatologiaArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The number of melanocytic naevi is a major risk factor for melanoma. The divergent pathway hypothesis proposes that the propensity for naevus proliferation and malignant transformation may differ by body site and exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation. This scoping review aimed to summarise the evidence on the number and distribution of naevi (≥ 2 mm) on the body overall and by individual anatomical sites in Caucasian adults, and to assess whether studies used the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) protocol to guide naevus counting processes. Systematic searches of Embase and PubMed identified 661 potentially relevant studies, and 12 remained eligible after full-text review. Studies varied widely in their counting protocols, reporting of naevus counts overall and by body sites, and used counting personnel with differing qualifications. Only one study used the IARC protocol. Studies reported that the highest number of naevi was on the trunk in males and on the arms in females. Body sites which receive intermittent exposure to UV radiation had higher density of naevi. Larger naevi (≥ 5 mm) were detected mostly on body sites intermittently exposed to UV radiation, and smaller naevi (< 5 mm) on chronically exposed sites. Studies reported that environmental and behavioural aspects related to UV radiation exposure, as well as genetic factors, all impact body site and size distribution of naevi. This review found that to overcome limitations of the current evidence, future studies should use consistent naevus counting protocols. Skin surface imaging could improve the reliability of findings. An updated IARC protocol is required that integrates these emerging standards and technologies to guide reliable and reproducible naevus counting 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.