ArticleCancer cell international2023
BRAF
Article in Cancer cell international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genetic Concordance in Primary Cutaneous Melanoma and Matched Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Pooled it
- Cutaneous Melanoma: A Review of Multifactorial Pathogenesis, Immunohistochemistry, and Emerging Biomarkers for Early Detection and Management.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
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 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMelanocytic neoplasms range from banal nevi to malignant melanomas. The genetic background has been extensively studied in the Caucasian population. BRAF mutations were reported among the early driver mutations in nevogenesis. Nevertheless, the pathogenesis in the Egyptian population has not been elucidated. AIM AND
methodsThe present study was carried out to assess the sensitivity and specificity of immunohistochemistry (IHC) using the RM-08 clone in reference to allele-specific real-time PCR (CAST-PCR) for the detection of the BRAF
resultsIHC staining was interpreted using staining reaction (positive versus negative) and staining pattern (negative and heterogeneous versus homogenous). Using the staining pattern, the specificity increased from 73.3 to 88.2%, the negative predictive value increased from 73.3 to 100%, the diagnostic accuracy increased from 71.4 to 90.48% and the overall accuracy increased from 69.9 to 77.3%. The sensitivity and positive predictive value remained unchanged. The K-agreement coefficient increased from 0.364 (fair agreement) to 0.741 (good agreement) and was statistically significant (p = 0.00). Next-generation sequencing was performed in 11 cases, 8 cases with IHC-positive and BRAF
conclusionsThese findings suggest that IHC staining homogeneity may be more accurate in predicting BRAF
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.