ReviewCureus2025
Comparison of 1-cm Versus 2-cm Excision Margins for Cutaneous Melanoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Narrow Excision Margins for Diverse Histological Subtypes of Cutaneous Melanoma in Children and Adults: A Systematic Review.Dermatology and therapy · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgical intervention is the primary treatment for localised cutaneous melanoma, with wide local excision being the gold standard. However, optimal excision margins remain a point of debate amongst clinicians. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the outcomes of 1 cm versus 2 cm excision margins for intermediate to thick melanomas. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a search of databases including PubMed, Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was conducted. The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, the ISRCTN registry and Science Direct were also screened. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Primary outcomes included overall, locoregional, and distant melanoma recurrence rates between 1 cm and 2 cm margins. Secondary outcomes assessed five-year disease-free survival and reconstruction complexity. The results were presented with forest plots at 95% confidence interval. No significant difference in overall recurrence rate was observed between 1 cm and 2 cm margins (0.846; 0.649, 1.103, p=0.216). Three studies reported no significant difference in disease-free survival at final follow-up. Primary closure was more achievable with a 1 cm margin (1.300; 1.053, 1.605, p value <0.015), while 2 cm margins required more complex reconstructions such as local flaps or skin grafts (0.772; 0.625, 0.955, p< 0.017). This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that a 1 cm margin is as safe as a 2 cm margin for intermediate to thick melanomas, reducing the need for complex reconstructions. Further randomised controlled trials are recommended to solidify these findings, but this study provides a strong foundation for adopting smaller excision margins.
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.