ReviewMedical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina)2022
A Review Study Toward Clinical and Histopathological Diagnosis Agreement in Skin Diseases.
Review in Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence-based quantification of epidermal proliferation and apoptosis in human skin.JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2026Article
- Comparing Clinical vs Histopathological Features in Diagnosing Erythemato-Squamous Diseases.Journal of clinical and investigative dermatology · 2026Article
- Retrospective study of histomorphological examination of skin lesion biopsies and their clinical concordance: experience from a tertiary care hospital in India.Journal of medicine and life · 2025Article
- Congenital and Neonatal Skin Disorders: Histopathological Diagnosis and Syndromic Associations.Cureus · 2025Review
- A clinically interpretable model derived from skin conductance for assessing microangiopathy of the skin surface.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: It is important to evaluate the agreement between clinical diagnosis and histopathological diagnosis. The aim of this study was to review studies and to calculate the degree of agreement between clinical and histopathological diagnosis. Objective: The aim of this review was to find out the concordance level between clinical and histopathological diagnosis; to find out in which type of pathology concordance was the highest; to identify the types of pathologies for which biopsy was mostly performed and the anatomical region selected for biopsy. Results and Discussion: Review was carried out in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for the selection of articles that met the criteria (years 2005-2021). Articles were found in Google scholar, PubMed, Scopus databases using different keywords. The main criterion was to involve studies that reported data about clinical and histopathological diagnosis. A mean concordance value was calculated and resulted of 72.8 % (95% CI). Conclusion: To our knowledge, our study was the first review done regarding concordance between clinical and histopathological diagnosis in skin diseases with the aim to provide researchers with enriched literature and encourage them to bring about an appropriate systematic review study.
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.