ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2026
Cross-Polarized Macro Photography versus Polarized Dermoscopy in Basal Cell Carcinoma: A Blinded Paired-Image Comparison.
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.
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.