ArticleDermatology practical & conceptual2022
Dermatopathological Correlation of Clinically Challenging Cutaneous Lesions: a Single Center Experience of 2184 Cases.
Article in Dermatology practical & conceptual, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- From clinic to microscope: A study of clinicopathological concordance in 5000 skin biopsies from a tertiary care center.Journal of postgraduate medicine · 2026Article
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
Introduction: Although a trained eye can easily identify typical skin lesions, histopathological examination and clinicopathological correlation are critical in challenging cases. Objectives: The primary objective is to organize the final diagnoses reached following clinicopathological consensus in clinically challenging cutaneous lesions, identifying the most common diagnostic scenarios encountered by dermatopathologists and discussing their diverse differentials submitted by clinicians. The secondary objective is to investigate how the case profile and clinician decision-making processes evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Skin and mucosa samples collected by the dermatology department between 2016 and 2020 were classified based on pathology reports. For frequent diagnoses, preliminary diagnoses stated by clinicians on pathology requisition forms were reviewed. The years preceding and following the first nationally reported COVID-19 case were compared to investigate the pandemic's impact on the distribution of dermatology and dermatopathology cases. Results: One thousand nine hundred and eighty-nine reports were classified into 4 major categories: inflammatory (49.8%), neoplastic (30.1%), other diseases (7.1%), and non-diagnostic (12.8%). We further classified inflammatory diseases based on major tissue reaction patterns and neoplasms based on cell origin. We analyzed the leading diagnoses in each category, discussed their differential diagnoses, and provided clinicians with clues to reduce errors in practice. Following the pandemic, the overall number of pathology reports and patient admissions dropped dramatically, with significant changes in case profiles. Conclusions: We presented and discussed the frequently encountered confounding cases to sketch the diagnostic landscape. In the authors' experience, clinicopathological correlation can increase the rate of reaching the diagnosis by up to 75.3%.
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.