ArticleDermatology reports2026
Retrospective multicenter study on severely dysplastic melanocytic nevi: evaluating the need for re-excision and the risk of recurrence or progression.
Article in Dermatology reports, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Severely dysplastic melanocytic nevi (SMD) are histologically challenging lesions with no consensus on optimal management. While complete excision is widely recommended, the necessity of additional re-excision remains debated. This retrospective, multicenter observational cohort study evaluated the risk of recurrence and disease progression in patients with SMD by comparing those who underwent a single complete excision to those who underwent a secondary widening procedure with 5 mm margins. A total of 226 patients (230 SMD lesions) were included, with diagnoses based on the 2018 World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. Among them, 13.5% underwent re-excision despite clear margins, while 86.5% were followed clinically. Over a minimum 5-year follow-up period, no patient in either group experienced recurrence at the excision site or progression to melanoma. These findings suggest that complete excision with clear margins is sufficient for managing SMD, with no added benefit from routine re-excision. Avoiding unnecessary surgical procedures could reduce patient anxiety, healthcare costs, and surgical morbidity. Given the lack of standardized guidelines, further prospective studies are needed to refine clinical decision-making for SMD management.
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.