Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36817365›Full record

ReviewEplasty2023

Redesigning Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Guidelines in Melanoma Cases.

Samuel A Stetkevich, Richard Simman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Eplasty, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Samuel A StetkevichDepartment of Medicine, UCLA-Oliveview Medical Center, Sylmar, CA.
Richard SimmanJobst Vascular Institute, Promedica Health Network, Toledo, OH.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Accurately staging and prognosticating melanoma classically depends on a sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). The mainstay predictors of SLNB positivity according to the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) are Breslow depth and ulceration. Nevertheless, even with these predictors, negative SLNBs, even in deep melanomas, are a common occurrence and may result in unnecessary invasive procedures for patients. This suggests that the parameters for determining SLNB candidates are a potential area for improvement in surgical dermatology (surgical oncology and plastic surgery). Methods: The authors conducted a systemic review to assess current AJCC guidelines on when a SLNB in melanoma is indicated. We also investigated how age, mitotic rate, lymphovascular invasion, satellitosis, melanoma subtype, anatomical location, and an immunocompromised state affected positivity rates in sentinel lymph node biopsies in melanoma. Results: These variables significantly impacted SLNB positivity rates and serve as evidence to support the proposal of redesigning SLNB guidelines in melanoma. Conclusions: Integrating the current AJCC guidelines with the newly examined variables will create patient-specific recommendations centered on the aim of reducing the number of invasive procedures while increasing SLNB positivity rates and prognostication.

Indexed as

MelanomaSentinel Node BiopsySurgical Dermatology

Identifiers

PMID36817365
PMCPMC9912052

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.