ReviewPlastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.)2026
Diagnostic Accuracy and Predictive Factors of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review.
Review in Plastic surgery (Oakville, Ont.), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) is increasingly used to stage cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), particularly in high-risk cases, though its diagnostic accuracy remains debated. This systematic review aims to evaluate SLNB detection rates, diagnostic accuracy, complications and predictors of positivity in patients with non-mucosal cSCC. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, Medline, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library were searched to January 2025. Studies reporting SLNB outcomes in histologically confirmed cSCC were included. Pediatric and mucosal/anogenital cases were excluded. Data on demographics, tumour characteristics, SLNB outcomes and complications were extracted. Comparisons between SLNB-positive, negative and false-negative groups were performed ( Results: Forty-four studies (3043 patients, 3050 lesions) were included. Among 2956 patients undergoing SLNB, nodes were identified in 96.9%, with positivity in 10.9%. False negatives occurred in 1.7% of the cases (rate 13.2%). SLNB-positive patients had larger tumours (4.24 vs 2.88 cm, Conclusion: SLNB demonstrates high detection but notable false negative rates in cSCC. Positive SLNB correlates with aggressive tumour features and worse outcomes. SLNB may assist staging in high-risk patients but should be used selectively, with close surveillance in SLNB-negative cases.
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.