ReviewDermatology practical & conceptual2024
Systematic Review of Nevus Counting and Reporting Methodologies in Contemporary Studies of the General Population.
Review in Dermatology practical & conceptual, 2024. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHaving many melanocytic nevi on the skin is a risk factor for melanoma. However, the reproducibility of nevus counts in previous studies is limited due to high inter- and intraobserver variation. Despite the introduction of a protocol for counting and reporting of nevi in 1990 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), significant variations in nevus counting methods persist across studies.
objectivesWe sought to review the variations in nevus counting and reporting methods, adherence and deviations from the IARC protocol, and the reproducibility of nevus counting studies.
methodsA systematic search of Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science was conducted. The review was limited to nevus (>2 mm) counting studies of general population adults conducted between 2000 and 2022 and studies using skilled examiners.
resultsOut of the eight studies which were eligible for inclusion, none followed the IARC protocol. Three studies used a predefined criterion to count nevi. Five studies provided training for their observers. Three studies assessed the inter- or intraobserver variation using the correlation coefficient (>0.75), and three studies attempted to verify the validity and the reproducibility of the counts. There was little to no agreement in nevus counting and reporting procedures in the reviewed studies, and most studies did not report their procedures adequately.
conclusionThis review highlights the need for an easily accessible and feasible protocol for the identification, counting, and reporting of nevi, which also considers nevus counting from total-body imaging and automated nevus counts since these technologies are expected to become widely available for future studies.
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.