The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy for basal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Background: Dermoscopy is a noninvasive technique for the diagnosis of skin lesions. Its accuracy for basal cell carcinoma (BCC) has not been systematically studied. Objective: We sought to systematically investigate the accuracy of dermoscopy for the diagnosis of BCC compared with examination with the naked eye. Methods: A systematic review of studies reporting the accuracy of naked eye examination and dermoscopy for the diagnosis of BCC was conducted. A meta‐analysis for sensitivity and specificity was performed using a bivariate mixed‐effects logistic regression modeling framework. Results: Seventeen studies were identified. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of dermoscopy for the diagnosis of BCC were 91.2% and 95%, respectively. In studies comparing test performance, adding dermoscopy to naked eye examination improved sensitivity from 66.9% to 85% (P = .0001) and specificity from 97.2% to 98.2% (P = .006). The sensitivity and specificity of dermoscopy were higher for pigmented than nonpigmented BCC. Sensitivity increased when dermoscopy was performed by experts and when the diagnosis was based on in‐person dermoscopy as opposed to dermoscopic photographs. Limitations: Significant heterogeneity among studies with a medium‐to‐high risk of bias. Conclusion: Dermoscopy is a sensitive and specific add‐on tool for the diagnosis of BCC. It is especially valuable for pigmented BCC.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
Diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy
Kittler, H., Pehamberger, H., Wolff, K., & Binder, M. (2002) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(02)00679-4 · Cited by 1,349
Cited by
Peris, K., Fargnoli, M. C., Kaufmann, R., Arenberger, P., Bastholt, L., Seguin, N. B., Bataille, V., Brochez, L., del Marmol, V., Dummer, R., et al. (2023) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2023.113254 · Cited by 308
Chen, J. Y., Fernandez, K., Fadadu, R. P., Reddy, R., Kim, M.-O., Tan, J., & Wei, M. L. (2025) · JAMA Dermatology · doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.4382 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Reiter, O., Mimouni, I., Gdalevich, M., Marghoob, A. A., Levi, A., Hodak, E., & Leshem, Y. A.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-05
- Volume
- 80
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1380-1388
- ISSN
- 0190-9622 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2906079923
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 1.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy for basal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jaad.2018.12.026
- The paper
- Reiter, O., Mimouni, I., Gdalevich, M., Marghoob, A. A., Levi, A., Hodak, E., & Leshem, Y. A. (2019). The diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy for basal cell carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2018.12.026
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.