SynthesisArchives of dermatological research2024
Is thermography an effective screening tool for differentiating benign and malignant skin lesions in the head and neck? A systematic review.
Synthesis in Archives of dermatological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The role of infrared thermography in thyroid nodule detection and classification: a scoping review.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess, through a systematic review, the status of infrared thermography (IRT) as a diagnostic tool for skin neoplasms of the head and neck region and in order to validate its effectiveness in differentiating benign and malignant lesions. A search was carried out in the LILACS, PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Web of Science and EMBASE databases including studies published between 2004 and 2024, written in the Latin-Roman alphabet. Accuracy studies with patients aged 18 years or over presenting benign and malignant lesions in the head and neck region that evaluated the performance of IRT in differentiating these lesions were included. Lesions of mesenchymal origin and studies that did not mention histopathological diagnosis were excluded. The systematic review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42023416079). Reviewers independently analyzed titles, abstracts, and full-texts. After extracting data, the risk of bias of the selected studies was assessed using the QUADAS - 2 tool. Results were narratively synthesized and the certainty of evidence was measured using the GRADE approach. The search resulted in 1,587 records and three studies were included. Only one of the assessed studies used static IRT, while the other two studies used cold thermal stress. All studies had an uncertain risk of bias. In general, studies have shown wide variation in the accuracy of IRT for differentiating between malignant and benign lesions, with a low level of certainty in the evidence for both specificity and sensitivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38878184What 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.