1994
DOI: 10.1016/s0190-9622(94)70207-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Nevus counting as a risk factor for melanoma: Comparison of self-count with count by physician

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
32
0

Year Published

1996
1996
2010
2010

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
1
32
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Self-reported numbers of nevi have been found in intermethod reliability studies to have fair to low agreement with dermatologists' nevus counts. [24][25][26] Measurement error could, therefore, explain our inconsistent findings on the relationship between nevus density and strong p53 staining. We expected that melanomas from NSW subjects would have a higher prevalence of p53 staining than those from BC and Ontario, given the higher intensity of ambient UV radiation in NSW; instead, we observed the reverse.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Self-reported numbers of nevi have been found in intermethod reliability studies to have fair to low agreement with dermatologists' nevus counts. [24][25][26] Measurement error could, therefore, explain our inconsistent findings on the relationship between nevus density and strong p53 staining. We expected that melanomas from NSW subjects would have a higher prevalence of p53 staining than those from BC and Ontario, given the higher intensity of ambient UV radiation in NSW; instead, we observed the reverse.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Individual risk factors play an important part in the development of malignant melanoma [10]. The most important phenotypic risk factors are the number of total body acquired melanocytic nevi and the occurrence of previous epithelial skin cancer [11][12][13][14][15].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lawson et al (1994) focused on the number of large naevi (Z 5 mm) and they observed a better agreement between the patients' and the physicians' counts (79% of agreement). Two main hypotheses can explain this phenomenon.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%