ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
A Feasibility Study for Immediate Histological Assessment of Various Skin Biopsies Using Ex Vivo Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Diagnostic Accuracy of Ex Vivo Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy for Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Ex Vivo Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy for Real-Time Pattern and Single-Cell Analysis in Inflammatory Skin Diseases.Experimental dermatology · 2025Article
- New Instant Digital Pathology for EUS/EBUS Samples: The Last Advance in Bedside Diagnostics for Lung Carcinoma.Cancers · 2024Article
- Immediate Diagnosis of Breast Carcinoma on Core Needle Biopsy Using Ex Vivo Fluorescence Confocal Microscopy: Feasibility in a One-Stop Breast Clinic Workflow.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Virtual Staining of Nonfixed Tissue Histology.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDigitally stained ex vivo confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) scans are a possible alternative to formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) and hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) stained slides. This study explores the diagnostic accuracy of digitally-stained CLSM scans in comparison to H&E-stained slides in various dermatologic diseases in a real-life setting.
methodsSamples of patients out of one selected dermatologic office were primarily scanned via CLSM; a diagnosis was made afterwards using FFPE- and H&E-stained slides by two experienced dermatopathologists. Primary outcomes were sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis in digitally stained CLSM scans in three separate diagnostic groups.
resultsCLSM evaluation of epithelial tumors (n = 132) demonstrated a sensitivity of 64.3%/83.9% and a specificity of 84.2%/71.1%. Diagnosis of melanocytic tumors (n = 86) showed a sensitivity of 19.1%/85.1% and a specificity of 96.3%/66.7%. In the diagnosis of other tumors/cysts and inflammatory dermatoses (n = 42), a sensitivity of 96.4%/96.8% and a specificity of 57.1%/45.5% was reached.
conclusionsThis study shows the possibilities and limitations of a broad use of CLSM. Because of a partly low diagnostic accuracy, such an application does not seem to be recommendable at present for every indication.
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.