↓ Skip to main content

Validity and Reliability of Dermoscopic Criteria Used to Differentiate Nevi From Melanoma: A Web-Based International Dermoscopy Society Study

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Dermatology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
20 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
104 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validity and Reliability of Dermoscopic Criteria Used to Differentiate Nevi From Melanoma: A Web-Based International Dermoscopy Society Study
Published in
JAMA Dermatology, July 2016
DOI 10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.0624
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristina Carrera, Michael A. Marchetti, Stephen W. Dusza, Giuseppe Argenziano, Ralph P. Braun, Allan C. Halpern, Natalia Jaimes, Harald J. Kittler, Josep Malvehy, Scott W. Menzies, Giovanni Pellacani, Susana Puig, Harold S. Rabinovitz, Alon Scope, H. Peter Soyer, Wilhelm Stolz, Rainer Hofmann-Wellenhof, Iris Zalaudek, Ashfaq A. Marghoob

Abstract

The comparative diagnostic performance of dermoscopic algorithms and their individual criteria are not well studied. To analyze the discriminatory power and reliability of dermoscopic criteria used in melanoma detection and compare the diagnostic accuracy of existing algorithms. This was a retrospective, observational study of 477 lesions (119 melanomas [24.9%] and 358 nevi [75.1%]), which were divided into 12 image sets that consisted of 39 or 40 images per set. A link on the International Dermoscopy Society website from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011, directed participants to the study website. Data analysis was performed from June 1, 2013, through May 31, 2015. Participants included physicians, residents, and medical students, and there were no specialty-type or experience-level restrictions. Participants were randomly assigned to evaluate 1 of the 12 image sets. Associations with melanoma and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were evaluated for the presence of dermoscopic criteria. Diagnostic accuracy measures were estimated for the following algorithms: the ABCD rule, the Menzies method, the 7-point checklist, the 3-point checklist, chaos and clues, and CASH (color, architecture, symmetry, and homogeneity). A total of 240 participants registered, and 103 (42.9%) evaluated all images. The 110 participants (45.8%) who evaluated fewer than 20 lesions were excluded, resulting in data from 130 participants (54.2%), 121 (93.1%) of whom were regular dermoscopy users. Criteria associated with melanoma included marked architectural disorder (odds ratio [OR], 6.6; 95% CI, 5.6-7.8), pattern asymmetry (OR, 4.9; 95% CI, 4.1-5.8), nonorganized pattern (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 2.9-3.7), border score of 6 (OR, 3.3; 95% CI, 2.5-4.3), and contour asymmetry (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.7-3.7) (P < .001 for all). Most dermoscopic criteria had poor to fair interobserver agreement. Criteria that reached moderate levels of agreement included comma vessels (ICC, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.40-0.49), absence of vessels (ICC, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.42-0.51), dark brown color (ICC, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.35-0.44), and architectural disorder (ICC, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.39-0.48). The Menzies method had the highest sensitivity for melanoma diagnosis (95.1%) but the lowest specificity (24.8%) compared with any other method (P < .001). The ABCD rule had the highest specificity (59.4%). All methods had similar areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves. Important dermoscopic criteria for melanoma recognition were revalidated by participants with varied experience. Six algorithms tested had similar but modest levels of diagnostic accuracy, and the interobserver agreement of most individual criteria was poor.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 12 15%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Other 21 26%
Unknown 14 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 44%
Psychology 8 10%
Computer Science 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Engineering 4 5%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 14 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,579,268
of 25,463,091 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Dermatology
#1,125
of 6,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,568
of 367,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Dermatology
#24
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,463,091 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,512 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 367,413 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.