ArticleCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2025
Factors Contributing to the False Diagnosis of Misleading Dermatofibromas.
Article in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesDermatofibromas (DFs) are common benign skin lesions with unclear etiology, possibly reactive or tumoral. This study aims to evaluate the incidence of DF misdiagnosis and to correlate histopathological findings with clinical interpretations.
methodsThe extraction for this retrospective study was conducted from 8035 excisions performed between 2016 and 2022 by 9 physicians. A total of 50 cases with conclusive histopathological diagnoses of DF and 33 clinical cases of DF were identified. A p value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsThe clinical arm included 33 cases, with 7 having DF in the differential diagnosis. The mean age for a confident DF diagnosis was 57.86 years, compared to 44.35 years for a probable diagnosis (p = 0.023). Diagnosis accuracy was 69% for certain cases versus 43% for probable cases. DF on legs had higher clinical uncertainty, 6/7 versus 9/26 (p = 0.016). In the histopathological arm of 50 patients, lesions on lower extremities had higher correct diagnosis rates (p = 0.024) and were least accurate on the torso (p = 0.009).
conclusionsDF can pose a challenge even for experienced clinicians. Location is crucial as DF may escape diagnosis in less common areas. Patients' age and physician's expertise induce uncertainty.
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.