Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39225289›Full record

ArticleSkin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI)2024

Comparing 3D imaging devices for the measurement of cutaneous neurofibromas in patients with Neurofibromatosis Type 1.

Jonathan C L Lau, Jane Fleming, Martin Good, Adrian Lim, Rebecca B Saunderson, Tai A Phan, Timothy Schlub, Sue-Faye Siow, Nanette Lacson, Carlos Romo and 3 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Comparing 3D imaging devices for the measurement of cutaneous neurofibromas in patients with Neurofibromatosis Type 1.Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI) · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Jonathan C L LauFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jane FlemingFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Martin GoodDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Adrian LimFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Rebecca B SaundersonFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Tai A PhanFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Timothy SchlubFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Sue-Faye SiowFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Nanette LacsonDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Carlos RomoDepartment of Neurology, John Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Jaishri BlakelyDepartment of Neurology, John Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Christina BergqvistDepartment of Dermatology, National Referral Center for Neurofibromatoses, Henri-Modor Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hopital Paris (AP-HP), Paris, France.
Yemima D BermanFaculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2495-4928

Funding

Neurofibromatosis Therapeutic Acceleration ProgramNSW Office of Health and Medical Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCutaneous neurofibromas (cNFs) are a major cause of disfigurement in patients with Neurofibromatosis Type 1 (NF1). However, clinical trials investigating cNF treatments lack standardised outcome measures to objectively evaluate changes in cNF size and appearance. 3D imaging has been proposed as an objective standardised outcome measure however various systems exist with different features that affect useability in clinical settings. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy, precision, feasibility, reliability and accessibility of three imaging systems. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe compared the Vectra-H1, LifeViz-Micro and Cherry-Imaging systems. A total of 58 cNFs from 13 participants with NF1 were selected for imaging and analysis. The primary endpoint was accuracy as measured by comparison of measurements between imaging systems. Secondary endpoints included reliability between two operators, precision as measured with the average coefficient of variation, feasibility as determined by time to capture and analyse an image and accessibility as determined by cost.

resultsThere was no significant difference in accuracy between the three devices for length or surface area measurements (p > 0.05), and reliability and precision were similar. Volume measurements demonstrated the most variability compared to other measurements; LifeViz-Micro demonstrated the least measurement variability for surface area and image capture and analysis were fastest with LifeViz-Micro. LifeViz-Micro was better for imaging smaller number of cNFs (1-3), Vectra-H1 better for larger areas and Cherry for uneven surfaces.

conclusionsAll systems demonstrated excellent reliability but possess distinct advantages and limitations. Surface area is the most consistent and reliable parameter for measuring cNF size in clinical trials.

Indexed as

Imaging, Three-DimensionalNeurofibromatosis 1Skin NeoplasmsAdolescentAdultDermoscopyEquipment DesignEquipment Failure AnalysisFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeurofibromaReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity3D imaging systemcutaneous neurofibromaNeurofibromatosis Type 1outcome measure

Identifiers

PMID39225289
PMCPMC11369787

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.