ArticleIndian dermatology online journal2026
Comparison of Noninvasive Methods for Diagnosing Basal Cell Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis.
Article in Indian dermatology online journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Dermoscopy and Beyond: The Emerging Role of Multimodal Imaging and Diagnostic Modalities in Basal Cell Carcinoma.Indian dermatology online journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBasal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common type of skin carcinoma affecting the elderly worldwide, and it is the central focus of this study. AIM AND
objectiveOur research aims to evaluate the diagnostic effectiveness of various methods, including dermatoscopy (DE), high-frequency ultrasound (HFU), optical coherence tomography (OCT), reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM), and histopathological examination (HPE). This comparison was accomplished through a network meta-analysis of patients diagnosed with BCC. MATERIALS AND
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across seven databases. Following this, both direct and indirect evidence were synthesized to assess the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of each diagnostic method. This thorough analysis helped to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) for different methods and calculate the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values, offering a deeper insight into the diagnosis of BCC.
resultsThe network meta-analysis integrated data from six eligible diagnostic trials. The results revealed that dermoscopy combining optical coherence tomography (DE-OCT) achieved the highest sensitivity (88.8%), specificity (70.7%), and NPV (84.2%), with the highest SUCRA value, indicating superior diagnostic performance. However, dermoscopy combining high-frequency ultrasound (DE-HFU) demonstrated the highest accuracy (90.1%) and PPV (73.8%). The sensitivity and accuracy for OCT (55.5%, 47.4%) and RCM (52.2%, 55.7%) were similar, with both methods ranking highest in these aspects. LIMITATIONS: This network meta-analysis has several limitations, including the limited number of comparisons and potential heterogeneity across the original studies.
conclusionThis network meta-analysis found DE-OCT and DE-HFU most effective for BCC diagnosis, but further validation in larger studies is needed. Still, it offers initial guidance for clinical tool selection.
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.