ArticleEye (London, England)2024
Real-world experience of implementing the MOLES score in a virtual choroidal naevi clinic at a tertiary referral centre.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Imaging-based machine learning for the diagnosis and prognosis of uveal melanoma: a systematic review and meta analysis.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2026Review
- Development of a deep learning model to classify choroidal melanoma risk factors based on color fundus photographs.AJO international · 2025Article
- Performance of the MOLES and TFSOM-DIM scores in classifying choroidal nevi and melanoma.Scientific reports · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe MOLES score has been validated to clinically differentiate choroidal naevi from melanomas by ocular oncologists and community optometrists. However, its utility in a virtual choroidal naevi clinic at a tertiary eye hospital without specialist ocular oncology services has not yet been evaluated.
methodsA retrospective case review of 385 choroidal lesions in the virtual choroidal naevus clinic at Bristol Eye Hospital during January-March 2020 and April-August 2021 was performed. Choroidal lesions were assessed using the TFSOM-UHHD risk factor index and MOLES score, respectively. For both study periods, clinical outcome and adherence data were analysed.
resultsChoroidal lesions scored higher with the TFSOM-UHHD index (median 2) compared to the MOLES score (median 0; p < 0.001). Median required follow-up duration was 2 years for lesions assessed with the TFSOM-UHHD index, and 0 years for those graded with the MOLES score. Overall, 215 patients were appropriately discharged to community optometrists based on their MOLES score. Imaging requirements for the TFSOM-UHHD index and MOLES score protocols were met in 69.1% and 94.8% of cases, respectively.
conclusionThe MOLES score was easily implemented in a virtual choroidal naevus clinic, with good adherence. It increased clinic capacity by facilitating appropriate discharges of low-risk naevi to community monitoring, allowing finite and specialist hospital-based services to monitor higher-risk naevi more closely.
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.