ArticleDermatology practical & conceptual2025
Re-evaluation of the Anatomical Distribution Patterns in Large Congenital Melanocytic Nevus.
Article in Dermatology practical & conceptual, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLarge congenital melanocytic nevi (LCMNs) are mainly classified according to their distribution patterns, which are thought to reflect their embryological development.
objectivesWe aimed to test the validity of previously described clinical classification systems of LCMNs in a large, well-documented case series.
methodsThe retrospective cohort study including 111 LCMN patients focused on the anatomical distribution of the nevus's main mass.
resultsThe trunk was most commonly affected (N=68), followed by the lower extremities (N=35). When the locations of the nevi were evaluated according to the previously described 6B (bolero, back, bathing trunk, breast/belly, body extremity, body patterns) and 7B (6B with the addition of bonce pattern) classification systems, 15 showed the typical bolero pattern, 13 back pattern, 23 bathing trunk pattern, five breast/belly pattern, 25 body extremity pattern, 14 bonce (head) pattern, and one body pattern. Among the 15 patients who could not be fully classified according to these patterns, five were grouped as "hood" (head and neck) pattern, eight as "half-bathing trunk," and two as "atypical bolero" sub-patterns. Isolated lesions on the extremities also exhibited two different sub-patterns: encircling the extremity or not.
conclusionMost of our cases demonstrated distribution patterns consistent with the 6B and 7B classification systems. However, the isolated head and neck involvement observed in our series may be described as hood pattern. Furthermore, certain variations, such as those seen in the bathing trunk and breast/belly patterns, may be considered subgroups of these patterns. Isolated extremity lesions of LCMNs exhibited two distinct patterns. These findings suggest that, although existing classification systems provide a valuable framework, further subclassifications may be necessary to account for regional variations observed in clinical practice.
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.