ArticleInternational journal of dermatology2026
Acral Melanocytic Lesions Under Conventional, Sub-Ultraviolet Reflectance, and Ultraviolet-Induced Fluorescence Dermoscopy: A Comparative Analysis.
Article in International journal of dermatology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferentiating benign acral melanocytic lesions (AMLs) from malignant ones remains a diagnostic challenge. While conventional dermoscopy (CD) is widely used, sub-ultraviolet reflectance dermoscopy (sUVRD) and ultraviolet-induced fluorescence dermoscopy (UVFD) may enhance feature visualization. This study compared the visibility scoring of CD, sUVRD, and UVFD in AMLs.
methodsA total of 42 AMLs from 37 patients were retrospectively analyzed, including 22 nevi, 12 melanoma in situ (MIS), and 8 invasive melanomas. Three dermatologists assessed each lesion using CD, sUVRD, and UVFD, scoring 11 features: parallel furrow pattern (PFP), parallel ridge pattern (PRP), fibrillar pattern, dots/clods, radial lines, blue-white structureless area, blotch, scale, ulceration, lesion margins, and eccrine duct openings on a 5-point scale by consensus.
resultsWhen all lesions were analyzed collectively, CD provided higher scores than UVFD for PFP, PRP, fibrillar pattern, dots/clods, radial lines, blue-white structureless areas, and blotch, and outperformed sUVRD for PRP and blue-white structureless areas. SUVRD better revealed eccrine duct openings. Scale, ulceration, and lesion margins were consistently well visualized across all three modalities. In subgroup analyses, CD scores were significantly higher than UVFD scores for PFP, fibrillar pattern, and dots/clods in nevi; for PRP and dots/clods in MIS; and for PRP, radial lines, blue-white structureless areas, and blotch in invasive melanoma. SUVRD was superior to CD in demonstrating eccrine duct openings in nevi and to UVFD in MIS.
conclusionsCD remains superior for visualizing key features of AMLs, while sUVRD and UVFD offer complementary strengths that may enhance overall lesion assessment.
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.