Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,208

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dermoscopy of pigmented skin lesions: Results of a consensus meeting via the Internet

Open access
Argenziano, Giuseppe, Soyer, H.Peter, Chimenti, Sergio, Talamini, Renato, Corona, Rosamaria, Sera, Francesco, Binder, Michael, Cerroni, Lorenzo, De Rosa, Gaetano, Ferrara, Gerardo, Hofmann-Wellenhof, Rainer, Landthaler, Michael, Menzies, Scott W., Pehamberger, Hubert, Piccolo, Domenico, Rabinovitz, Harold S., Schiffner, Roman, Staibano, Stefania, Stolz, Wilhelm, Bartenjev, Igor, Blum, Andreas, Braun, Ralph, Cabo, Horacio, Carli, Paolo, De Giorgi, Vincenzo, Fleming, Matthew G., Grichnik, James M., Grin, Caron M., Halpern, Allan C., Johr, Robert, Katz, Brian, Kenet, Robert O., Kittler, Harald, Kreusch, Jrgen, Malvehy, Josep, Mazzocchetti, Giampiero, Oliviero, Margaret, zdemir, Fezal, Peris, Ketty, Perotti, Roberto, Perusquia, Ana, Pizzichetta, Maria Antonietta, Puig, Susana, Rao, Babar, Rubegni, Pietro, Saida, Toshiaki, Scalvenzi, Massimiliano, Seidenari, Stefania, Stanganelli, Ignazio, Tanaka, Masaru, Westerhoff, Karin, Wolf, Ingrid H., Braun-Falco, Otto, Kerl, Helmut, Nishikawa, Takeji, Wolff, Klaus, Kopf, Alfred W.·2003·Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology

Abstract

BACKGROUND There is a need for better standardization of the dermoscopic terminology in assessing pigmented skin lesions. OBJECTIVE The virtual Consensus Net Meeting on Dermoscopy was organized to investigate reproducibility and validity of the various features and diagnostic algorithms. METHODS Dermoscopic images of 108 lesions were evaluated via the Internet by 40 experienced dermoscopists using a 2-step diagnostic procedure. The first-step algorithm distinguished melanocytic versus nonmelanocytic lesions. The second step in the diagnostic procedure used 4 algorithms (pattern analysis, ABCD rule, Menzies method, and 7-point checklist) to distinguish melanoma versus benign melanocytic lesions. kappa Values, log odds ratios, sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratios were estimated for all diagnostic algorithms and dermoscopic features. RESULTS Interobserver agreement was fair to good for all diagnostic methods, but it was poor for the majority of dermoscopic criteria. Intraobserver agreement was good to excellent for all algorithms and features considered. Pattern analysis allowed the best diagnostic performance (positive likelihood ratio: 5.1), whereas alternative algorithms revealed comparable sensitivity but less specificity. Interobserver agreement on management decisions made by dermoscopy was fairly good (mean kappa value: 0.53). CONCLUSION The virtual Consensus Net Meeting on Dermoscopy represents a valid tool for better standardization of the dermoscopic terminology and, moreover, opens up a new territory for diagnosing and managing pigmented skin lesions.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1067/mjd.2003.281

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 1,208

Metadata

Authors
Argenziano, G., Soyer, H. P., Chimenti, S., Talamini, R., Corona, R., Sera, F., Binder, M., Cerroni, L., De Rosa, G., Ferrara, G., Hofmann-Wellenhof, R., Landthaler, M., Menzies, S. W., Pehamberger, H., Piccolo, D., Rabinovitz, H. S., Schiffner, R., Staibano, S., Stolz, W., Bartenjev, I., Blum, A., Braun, R., Cabo, H., Carli, P., De Giorgi, V., Fleming, M. G., Grichnik, J. M., Grin, C. M., Halpern, A. C., Johr, R., Katz, B., Kenet, R. O., Kittler, H., Kreusch, J., Malvehy, J., Mazzocchetti, G., Oliviero, M., zdemir, F., Peris, K., Perotti, R., Perusquia, A., Pizzichetta, M. A., Puig, S., Rao, B., Rubegni, P., Saida, T., Scalvenzi, M., Seidenari, S., Stanganelli, I., Tanaka, M., Westerhoff, K., Wolf, I. H., Braun-Falco, O., Kerl, H., Nishikawa, T., Wolff, K., & Kopf, A. W.
Venue
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-05
Volume
48
Issue
5
Pages
679-693
ISSN
0190-9622 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1980621031
Cited by
1,208
References
4
FWCI
20.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

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.