ArticleArchives of dermatological research2023
Exploring knowledge gaps in the understanding of peripheral and deep en face margin assessment.
Article in Archives of dermatological research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In 2022, National Comprehensive Cancer Network updated the phrase of "complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment (CCPDMA)" to "peripheral and deep en face margin assessment (PDEMA)," which was meant to create more consistency across all treatment modalities and provide clarity to the meaning of total margin evaluation. The aim of this project was to investigate the interpretation of PDEMA across pertinent specialties and to identify any existing knowledge gaps in hopes of improving clinical performance of institutional practice. An electronic survey was administered to medical professionals within the divisions of dermatology and otolaryngology retrieving demographic data and assessing respondents' knowledge on tissue processing techniques and PDEMA. Of the four knowledge-based assessment questions administered, dermatology respondents answered three questions with > 80% accuracy and one question with < 65% accuracy. Otolaryngology respondents answered one question with > 80% accuracy and three with < 65% accuracy. Both groups answered the knowledge-based question evaluating the concept of "what must be true for Mohs or PDEMA to have value" with under 65% accuracy. When comparing dermatology and otolaryngology respondents, only one question which evaluated the proper methods to "achieve processing of the epidermal edge and the base of the tumor along a single plane in the lab" significantly differed between groups, with a percentage correct of 96% for dermatologists compared to 54% for otolaryngologists (p < 0.001). Results were found to be similar when resident physicians were removed from analysis. The overall percent correct for knowledge-based questions was shifted higher for dermatologists compared to otolaryngologists (p = 0.014). This trend was also redemonstrated when analyzing the data excluding residents (p = 0.053).
Indexed as
Identifiers
37222796What 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.