ArticleDermatology and therapy2025
Diagnostic Accuracy of Polarized and Ultraviolet Fluorescence-Induced Dermoscopy in Scarring and Nonscarring Alopecias: a Retrospective Observational Multicentric Study.
Article in Dermatology and therapy, 2025. 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.
- Dermoscopy of Prurigo Nodularis/Lichen Simplex Chronicus of the Scalp: A Comparative Observational Study in Fair and Dark Skin.Dermatology and therapy · 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
introductionThere is growing evidence that ultraviolet-induced fluorescence (UVF) dermoscopy may improve diagnostic accuracy in non-neoplastic dermatoses, yet data on hair disorders are scarce. The aim of this observational retrospective study was to compare the accuracy of polarized dermoscopy and UVF-dermoscopy in characterizing and distinguishing scarring and nonscarring alopecias.
methodsA total of 84 patients were enrolled, with 43 and 41 patients suffering from nonscarring and scarring alopecias, respectively. Analyzed variables included scarring findings (i.e., dotted/globular, structureless or perifollicular bright white areas on both polarized and UVF-dermoscopy) and follicular unit (i.e., hair or follicular ostia, with the latter appearing as empty follicular openings and follicular red/blue fluoresce on polarized and UVF-dermoscopy, respectively). Comparative analysis between polarized and UVF-dermoscopy in detecting the abovementioned features and differentiating scarring from nonscarring alopecias were performed, also assessing possible differences according to the skin tone. Interobserver agreement was evaluated for both dermoscopic settings.
resultsUVF-dermoscopy was superior (p < 0.01) to polarized dermoscopy in detecting follicular ostia and white bright areas in general and fair-skinned patients, while only follicular ostia were better seen under this setting in skin of color. Additionally, UVF-dermoscopy was found to be more accurate (p < 0.01) in differentiating nonscarring from scarring alopecias when considering all and light phototypes. Finally, Kappa values were 0.57 and 0.83 for polarized and UVF-dermoscopy, respectively.
conclusionsUVF-dermoscopy may be a valuable and reliable complementary tool in differentiating scarring and nonscarring alopecias, especially in light phototypes.
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.