Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42051916›Full record

ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2026

Cross-Polarized Macro Photography versus Polarized Dermoscopy in Basal Cell Carcinoma: A Blinded Paired-Image Comparison.

Ozan Erdem, Vefa Aslı Erdemir, Buğra Burç Dağtaş, Ayşe Esra Koku Aksu, Sümeyre Seda Ertekin, Abdurrahim Yilmaz, Ece Gökyayla, Gülsüm Gençoğlan, Fatih Göktay, Mehmet Salih Gürel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Ozan ErdemDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-6012-0528
Vefa Aslı ErdemirDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Buğra Burç DağtaşDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Ayşe Esra Koku AksuDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Istanbul Teaching and Research Hospital, Health Sciences University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Sümeyre Seda ErtekinDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Memorial Goztepe Hospital, Memorial Health Group, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abdurrahim YilmazDivision of Systems Medicine, Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Ece GökyaylaDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey.
Gülsüm GençoğlanDermatology and Venereology, Medicana Atakoy Hospital, Medicana Health Group, Istanbul, Turkey.
Fatih GöktayDermatology and Venereology, Private Dermatology Clinic, Istanbul, Turkey.
Mehmet Salih GürelDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Polarized dermoscopy (PD) is the established non-contact imaging modality for basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Cross-polarized macro photography (CPMP) applies analogous optical principles using widely available equipment, but its performance relative to PD has not been systematically evaluated. Objective: To compare dermoscopic feature visibility, image quality, and expert modality preference between CPMP and PD in BCC using a blinded, paired-image design. Methods: One hundred paired CPMP and PD images of histopathologically confirmed BCCs, acquired during the same clinical visit, were digitally masked to remove modality-revealing cues and reviewed in randomized side-by-side pairs. Feature visibility was assessed by three dermoscopists; image quality by a multidisciplinary panel using the DIQS-5 (a structured 5-point dermoscopic image quality scale); and modality preference by three dermatologists with varying CPMP familiarity across two blinded rounds with a washout period. Results: Feature visibility did not differ significantly for any established BCC criterion (all P > 0.05). CPMP scored significantly higher for depth of field and color fidelity (both P < 0.001); sharpness was comparable between modalities (P = 0.494). CPMP captured all lesions ≥1 cm in a single frame, whereas 41.5% of large lesions exceeded PD's field of view. The majority of raters preferred CPMP in both evaluation rounds, with phenotype-dependent patterns: CPMP was favored for pigment-rich lesions and PD for lesions with fine vascular structures. Conclusion: CPMP demonstrated feature visibility comparable to PD while offering measurable advantages in depth of field, field of view, and color rendering, suggesting complementary roles for these modalities in BCC imaging.

Indexed as

dermoscopic feature visibilityimage qualitymedical photographynon-contact imagingoptical imagingskin cancer imaging

Identifiers

PMID42051916
PMCPMC13117832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.