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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
| Title |
Guidelines of the Brazilian Dermatology Society for diagnosis, treatment and follow up of primary cutaneous melanoma - Part I*
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1590/abd1806-4841.20154707 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luiz Guilherme Martins Castro, Maria Cristina Messina, Walter Loureiro, Ricardo Silvestre Macarenco, João Pedreira Duprat, Thais Helena Bello Di Giacomo, Flávia Vasques Bittencourt, Renato Marchiori Bakos, Sérgio Schrader Serpa, Hamilton Ometto Stolf, Gabriel Gontijo |
| Abstract |
The last Brazilian guidelines on melanoma were published in 2002. Development in diagnosis and treatment made updating necessary. The coordinators elaborated ten clinical questions, based on PICO system. A Medline search, according to specific MeSH terms for each of the 10 questions was performed and articles selected were classified from A to D according to level of scientific evidence. Based on the results, recommendations were defined and classified according to scientific strength. The present Guidelines were divided in two parts for editorial and publication reasons. In the first part, the following clinical questions were answered: 1) The use of dermoscopy for diagnosis of primary cutaneous melanoma brings benefits for patients when compared with clinical examination? 2) Does dermoscopy favor diagnosis of nail apparatus melanoma? 3) Is there a prognostic difference when incisional or excisional biopsies are used? 4) Does revision by a pathologist trained in melanoma contribute to diagnosis and treatment of primary cutaneous melanoma? What margins should be used to treat lentigo maligna melanoma and melanoma in situ? |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 8 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 14% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 50% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 10 | 24% |