ArticleDermatology (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Validation of a Dermatoscopy-Based Algorithm for the Diagnosis of Acral Melanoma.
Article in Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Association between dermoscopic features and tumor thickness, diameter, age, and sex in acral melanoma: A cross-sectional study.JAAD international · 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDiagnosis of acral melanocytic lesions can be challenging. The BRAAFF checklist was introduced as a tool to help differentiate between acral nevi and melanoma but has not been validated.
methodsWe asked raters with varying expertise in dermatoscopy to diagnose dermatoscopic images of 533 acral nevi and 144 melanomas via an online platform with and without use of the BRAAFF checklist. From the ratings, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, and interrater agreement. Additionally, a new simplified version of the checklist was also tested.
resultsWe collected 6,880 ratings from 175 readers. The BRAAFF checklist achieved a sensitivity of 92.5% and a specificity of 65.0%, which was similar to diagnosis from pattern recognition (sensitivity 90.0%, specificity: 72.1%). Interrater agreement for the BRAAFF criteria ranged from fair to moderate, with lowest agreement for parallel ridge and fibrillar pattern (alpha = 0.31) and highest for asymmetry of colors and structures (alpha = 0.46). Agreement and diagnostic accuracy were higher for more experienced readers. A simplified version with only two criteria achieved similar sensitivity (95.0%) and lower specificity (60.0%) as the original BRAAFF checklist.
conclusionThe BRAAFF checklist is a useful tool for the diagnosis of melanocytic acral lesions with acceptable sensitivity and reasonable specificity but is not superior to pattern recognition. A simplified version of the checklist could be easier to use with equal sensitivity while exhibiting a modest reduction in specificity.
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.