ArticleJAAD international2025
Validation of risk prediction models for sentinel lymph node metastasis in melanoma in a high UV index region.
Article in JAAD international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparing the i31-SLNB and the MIA Nomogram for Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy Positivity Prediction in Cutaneous Melanoma: A Prospective Cohort Analysis.Dermatology and therapy · 2026Article
- Development of Nomograms to Predict the Probability of Recurrence at Specific Sites in Patients with Cutaneous Melanoma.Cancers · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Risk prediction models may refine individualized selection for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in melanoma. Objective: To evaluate the statistical accuracy and clinical utility of nomograms by the Melanoma Institute of Australia (MIA), Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), and University of Colorado in a Southern Arizona population. Methods: In this prognostic validation, statistical accuracy was assessed through discrimination, measured with receiver operating characteristic curves and calibration plots. Clinical utility was evaluated via decision curve analysis to determine the net benefit and number of net avoidable interventions achieved with nomogram use. Results: Among 712 melanoma cases included, model discrimination was highest for the MIA nomogram (C-statistic = 0.753; 95% confidence interval = 0.694-0.812), followed by MSKCC (0.729[0.671-0.787]), and University of Colorado (0.601[0.405-0.793]). The MIA and MSKCC nomograms were well-calibrated across clinically relevant risk thresholds. All nomograms achieved a net benefit and net reduction in avoidable SLNBs for risk thresholds ≥5%. There was minimal to no reduction in unnecessary interventions at age extremes (<50 and ≥ 80 years old) for specific risk strata and nomograms. Limitations: This a 5-year retrospective study. Conclusions: These nomograms can be used to support SLNB decision-making in this population but necessitate caution in patients at age extremes when used to reduce avoidable interventions.
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.