2008
DOI: 10.1001/archderm.144.4.554
|Get access via publisher |Summarize |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts

CASH Algorithm for Dermoscopy Revisited

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
28
5
2
0

Citation Types

3
21
1
3

Year Published

2000
2000
2026
2026

Publication Types

Select...
27
5
2

Relationship

0
34

Authors

Journals

citations

Cited by 34 publications

(28 citation statements)
references

References 6 publications

3
21
1
3
Order By: Relevance
How this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…Our intention was to compare those two algorithms in the differential diagnosis of pigmented melanocytic lesion and in particular between thin melanomas and melanocytic nevi. In agreement with other reports, CASH appears sensitive and specific, but complex. Contrarily, the 3‐point checklist is a quick consultation tool, but it lacks sufficient specificity, even in our cohort.…”
Section: Discussion
supporting
confidence: 93%
How this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…Our intention was to compare those two algorithms in the differential diagnosis of pigmented melanocytic lesion and in particular between thin melanomas and melanocytic nevi. In agreement with other reports, CASH appears sensitive and specific, but complex. Contrarily, the 3‐point checklist is a quick consultation tool, but it lacks sufficient specificity, even in our cohort.…”
Section: Discussion
supporting
confidence: 93%
How this paper cites the one you are viewing
“…In the literature, the seven-point checklist is reported to have sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy ranges of 76-100%, 45-87%, and 57.7-88.1%, respectively. 1,[11][12][13][14] Our findings were compatible with the literature (sensitivity, 87.5%; specificity, 65.9%; diagnostic accuracy, 70.4%).…”
Section: Discussion
supporting
confidence: 90%
“…In their study, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy rates were 97.9, 90.3, and 92.2%, respectively. In the literature, the ABCD rule of dermatoscopy is reported to have a sensitivity range of 58–97.9%, a specificity range of 66–91.2%, and a diagnostic accuracy range of 38.8–92.2% . In our study, the ABCD rule of dermatoscopy had sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of 91.6, 60.4, and 66.9%.…”
Section: Discussion
supporting
confidence: 55%
“…Specificity of the CASH algorithm was found to be significantly higher than that yielded by the seven‐point checklist. No significant difference was found for sensitivity and specificity between the CASH algorithm and the ABCD rule of dermatoscopy . In our study; sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of this algorithm were 91.6%, 64.8%, and 70.4%, respectively.…”
Section: Discussion
contrasting
confidence: 51%
“…In the literature, the ABCD rule of dermatoscopy is reported to have a sensitivity range of 58-97.9%, a specificity range of 66-91.2%, and a diagnostic accuracy range of 38.8-92.2%. 1,7,[11][12][13][15][16][17] In our study, the ABCD rule of dermatoscopy had sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of 91.6, 60.4, and 66.9%. Lesions are classified into three groups (benign, suspicious, and malignant) according to TDS by this algorithm.…”
Section: Discussion
mentioning
confidence: 68%
See 2 more Smart Citations