1
|
Tognetti L, Cartocci A, Moscarella E, Lallas A, Dika E, Fargnoli MC, Longo C, Nazzaro G, Paoli J, Stanganelli I, Magi S, Lacarrubba F, Broganelli P, Perrot JL, Suppa M, Giuffrida R, Cinotti E, Sofia LC, Cataldo G, Cevenini G, Rubegni P. Pattern Analysis of Benign and Malignant Atypical Melanocytic Skin Lesions of Palms and Soles: Variations of Dermoscopic Features According to Anatomic Site and Personal Experience. Life (Basel) 2024; 14:659. [PMID: 38929643 PMCID: PMC11205239 DOI: 10.3390/life14060659] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/03/2024] [Revised: 05/17/2024] [Accepted: 05/18/2024] [Indexed: 06/28/2024] Open
Abstract
Background: The differential diagnosis of atypical melanocytic skin lesions localized on palms and soles represents a diagnostic challenge: indeed, this spectrum encompasses atypical nevi (AN) and early-stage melanomas (EN) displaying overlapping clinical and dermoscopic features. This often generates unnecessary excisions or delayed diagnosis. Investigations to date were mostly carried out in specific populations, focusing either on acrolentiginous melanomas or morphologically typical acquired nevi. Aims: To investigate the dermoscopic features of atypical melanocytic palmoplantar skin lesions (aMPPLs) as evaluated by variously skilled dermatologists and assess their concordance; to investigate the variations in dermoscopic appearance according to precise location on palms and soles; to detect the features with the strongest association with malignancy/benignity in each specific site. Methods: A dataset of 471 aMPPLs-excised in the suspect of malignancy-was collected from 10 European Centers, including a standardized dermoscopic picture (17×) and lesion/patient metadata. An anatomical classification into 17 subareas was considered, along with an anatomo-functional classification considering pressure/friction, (4 macroareas). A total of 156 participants (95 with less than 5 years of experience in dermoscopy and 61 with ≥than 5 years) from 17 countries performed a blinded tele-dermoscopic pattern analysis over 20 cases through a specifically realized web platform. Results: A total of 37,440 dermoscopic evaluations were obtained over 94 (20%) EM and 377 (80%) AN. The areas with the highest density of EM compared to AN were the heel (40.3% EM/aMPPLs) of the sole and the "fingers area" (33%EM/aMPPLs) of the palm, both characterized by intense/chronic traumatism/friction. Globally, the recognition rates of 12 dermoscopic patterns were non statistically different between 95 dermatology residents and 61 specialists: aMPPLs in the plantar arch appeared to be the most "difficult" to diagnose, the parallel ridge pattern was poorly recognized and irregular/regular fibrillar patterns often misinterpreted. Regarding the aMPPL of the "heel area", the parallel furrow pattern (p = 0.014) and lattice-like pattern (p = 0.001) significantly discriminated benign cases, while asymmetry of colors (p = 0.002) and regression structures (p = 0.025) malignant ones. In aMPPLs of the "plantar arch", the lattice-like pattern (p = 0.012) was significant for benignity and asymmetry of structures, asymmetry of colors, regression structures, or blue-white veil for malignancy. In palmar lesions, no data were significant in the discrimination between malignant and benign aMPPLs. Conclusions: This study highlights that (i) the pattern analysis of aMPPLs is challenging for both experienced and novice dermoscopists; (ii) the histological distribution varies according to the anatomo-functional classification; and (iii) different dermoscopic patterns are able to discriminate malignant from benign aMPPLs within specific plantar and palmar areas.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Linda Tognetti
- Dermatology Unit, Department of Medical, Surgical and Neurosciences, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
| | - Alessandra Cartocci
- Dermatology Unit, Department of Medical, Surgical and Neurosciences, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
- Bioengineering and Biomedical Data Science Lab, Department of Medical Biotechnologies, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
| | - Elvira Moscarella
- Dermatology Unit, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, 81100 Naples, Italy
| | - Aimilios Lallas
- First Department of Dermatology, Aristotle University, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - Emi Dika
- Oncologic Dermatology Unit, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), Alma Mater Studiorum University of Bologna, 40138 Bologna, Italy
| | | | - Caterina Longo
- Department of Dermatology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, 41125 Modena, Italy
- Skin Cancer Center, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy
| | - Gianluca Nazzaro
- Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, 20122 Milan, Italy
| | - John Paoli
- Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, 41390 Gothenburg, Sweden
- Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 41345 Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Ignazio Stanganelli
- Skin Cancer Unit, Scientific Institute of Romagna for the Study of Cancer, IRCCS, IRST, 47014 Meldola, Italy
- Department of Dermatology, University of Parma, 43121 Parma, Italy
| | - Serena Magi
- Skin Cancer Unit, Scientific Institute of Romagna for the Study of Cancer, IRCCS, IRST, 47014 Meldola, Italy
| | | | - Paolo Broganelli
- Dermatology Unit, University Hospital of Torino, 4020 Torino, Italy
| | - Jean-Luc Perrot
- Dermatology Unit, University Hospital of St-Etienne, 42270 Saint Etienne, France
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1070 Brussels, Belgium
| | - Mariano Suppa
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1070 Brussels, Belgium
- Department of Dermatology, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1070 Brussels, Belgium
- Groupe d’Imagerie Cutanée Non Invasive (GICNI) of the Société Française de Dermatologie (SFD), 75008 Paris, France
| | - Roberta Giuffrida
- Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Dermatology, University of Messina, 98122 Messina, Italy
| | - Elisa Cinotti
- Dermatology Unit, Department of Medical, Surgical and Neurosciences, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
- Groupe d’Imagerie Cutanée Non Invasive (GICNI) of the Société Française de Dermatologie (SFD), 75008 Paris, France
| | - Lo Conte Sofia
- Dermatology Unit, Department of Medical, Surgical and Neurosciences, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
| | - Gennaro Cataldo
- Bioengineering and Biomedical Data Science Lab, Department of Medical Biotechnologies, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
| | - Gabriele Cevenini
- Bioengineering and Biomedical Data Science Lab, Department of Medical Biotechnologies, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
| | - Pietro Rubegni
- Dermatology Unit, Department of Medical, Surgical and Neurosciences, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Dinnes J, Deeks JJ, Chuchu N, Matin RN, Wong KY, Aldridge RB, Durack A, Gulati A, Chan SA, Johnston L, Bayliss SE, Leonardi‐Bee J, Takwoingi Y, Davenport C, O'Sullivan C, Tehrani H, Williams HC. Visual inspection and dermoscopy, alone or in combination, for diagnosing keratinocyte skin cancers in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 12:CD011901. [PMID: 30521688 PMCID: PMC6516870 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011901.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Early accurate detection of all skin cancer types is important to guide appropriate management, to reduce morbidity and to improve survival. Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is almost always a localised skin cancer with potential to infiltrate and damage surrounding tissue, whereas a minority of cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCCs) and invasive melanomas are higher-risk skin cancers with the potential to metastasise and cause death. Dermoscopy has become an important tool to assist specialist clinicians in the diagnosis of melanoma, and is increasingly used in primary-care settings. Dermoscopy is a precision-built handheld illuminated magnifier that allows more detailed examination of the skin down to the level of the superficial dermis. Establishing the value of dermoscopy over and above visual inspection for the diagnosis of BCC or cSCC in primary- and secondary-care settings is critical to understanding its potential contribution to appropriate skin cancer triage, including referral of higher-risk cancers to secondary care, the identification of low-risk skin cancers that might be treated in primary care and to provide reassurance to those with benign skin lesions who can be safely discharged. OBJECTIVES To determine the diagnostic accuracy of visual inspection and dermoscopy, alone or in combination, for the detection of (a) BCC and (b) cSCC, in adults. We separated studies according to whether the diagnosis was recorded face-to-face (in person) or based on remote (image-based) assessment. SEARCH METHODS We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception up to August 2016: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; CPCI; Zetoc; Science Citation Index; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register; NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database; and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We studied reference lists and published systematic review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA Studies of any design that evaluated visual inspection or dermoscopy or both in adults with lesions suspicious for skin cancer, compared with a reference standard of either histological confirmation or clinical follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on QUADAS-2). We contacted authors of included studies where information related to the target condition or diagnostic thresholds were missing. We estimated accuracy using hierarchical summary ROC methods. We undertook analysis of studies allowing direct comparison between tests. To facilitate interpretation of results, we computed values of sensitivity at the point on the SROC curve with 80% fixed specificity and values of specificity with 80% fixed sensitivity. We investigated the impact of in-person test interpretation; use of a purposely-developed algorithm to assist diagnosis; and observer expertise. MAIN RESULTS We included 24 publications reporting on 24 study cohorts, providing 27 visual inspection datasets (8805 lesions; 2579 malignancies) and 33 dermoscopy datasets (6855 lesions; 1444 malignancies). The risk of bias was mainly low for the index test (for dermoscopy evaluations) and reference standard domains, particularly for in-person evaluations, and high or unclear for participant selection, application of the index test for visual inspection and for participant flow and timing. We scored concerns about the applicability of study findings as of 'high' or 'unclear' concern for almost all studies across all domains assessed. Selective participant recruitment, lack of reproducibility of diagnostic thresholds and lack of detail on observer expertise were particularly problematic.The detection of BCC was reported in 28 datasets; 15 on an in-person basis and 13 image-based. Analysis of studies by prior testing of participants and according to observer expertise was not possible due to lack of data. Studies were primarily conducted in participants referred for specialist assessment of lesions with available histological classification. We found no clear differences in accuracy between dermoscopy studies undertaken in person and those which evaluated images. The lack of effect observed may be due to other sources of heterogeneity, including variations in the types of skin lesion studied, in dermatoscopes used, or in the use of algorithms and varying thresholds for deciding on a positive test result.Meta-analysis found in-person evaluations of dermoscopy (7 evaluations; 4683 lesions and 363 BCCs) to be more accurate than visual inspection alone for the detection of BCC (8 evaluations; 7017 lesions and 1586 BCCs), with a relative diagnostic odds ratio (RDOR) of 8.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.5 to 19.3; P < 0.001). This corresponds to predicted differences in sensitivity of 14% (93% versus 79%) at a fixed specificity of 80% and predicted differences in specificity of 22% (99% versus 77%) at a fixed sensitivity of 80%. We observed very similar results for the image-based evaluations.When applied to a hypothetical population of 1000 lesions, of which 170 are BCC (based on median BCC prevalence across studies), an increased sensitivity of 14% from dermoscopy would lead to 24 fewer BCCs missed, assuming 166 false positive results from both tests. A 22% increase in specificity from dermoscopy with sensitivity fixed at 80% would result in 183 fewer unnecessary excisions, assuming 34 BCCs missed for both tests. There was not enough evidence to assess the use of algorithms or structured checklists for either visual inspection or dermoscopy.Insufficient data were available to draw conclusions on the accuracy of either test for the detection of cSCCs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Dermoscopy may be a valuable tool for the diagnosis of BCC as an adjunct to visual inspection of a suspicious skin lesion following a thorough history-taking including assessment of risk factors for keratinocyte cancer. The evidence primarily comes from secondary-care (referred) populations and populations with pigmented lesions or mixed lesion types. There is no clear evidence supporting the use of currently-available formal algorithms to assist dermoscopy diagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacqueline Dinnes
- University of BirminghamInstitute of Applied Health ResearchBirminghamUKB15 2TT
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of BirminghamNIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research CentreBirminghamUK
| | - Jonathan J Deeks
- University of BirminghamInstitute of Applied Health ResearchBirminghamUKB15 2TT
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of BirminghamNIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research CentreBirminghamUK
| | - Naomi Chuchu
- University of BirminghamInstitute of Applied Health ResearchBirminghamUKB15 2TT
| | - Rubeta N Matin
- Churchill HospitalDepartment of DermatologyOld RoadHeadingtonOxfordUKOX3 7LE
| | - Kai Yuen Wong
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryOxfordUK
| | - Roger Benjamin Aldridge
- NHS Lothian/University of EdinburghDepartment of Plastic Surgery25/6 India StreetEdinburghUKEH3 6HE
| | - Alana Durack
- Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustDermatologyHills RoadCambridgeUKCB2 0QQ
| | - Abha Gulati
- Barts Health NHS TrustDepartment of DermatologyWhitechapelLondonUKE11BB
| | - Sue Ann Chan
- City HospitalBirmingham Skin CentreDudley RdBirminghamUKB18 7QH
| | - Louise Johnston
- NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co‐operative Newcastle2nd Floor William Leech Building (Rm M2.061) Institute of Cellular Medicine Newcastle UniversityFramlington PlaceNewcastle upon TyneUKNE2 4HH
| | - Susan E Bayliss
- University of BirminghamInstitute of Applied Health ResearchBirminghamUKB15 2TT
| | - Jo Leonardi‐Bee
- The University of NottinghamDivision of Epidemiology and Public HealthClinical Sciences BuildingNottingham City Hospital NHS Trust Campus, Hucknall RoadNottinghamUKNG5 1PB
| | - Yemisi Takwoingi
- University of BirminghamInstitute of Applied Health ResearchBirminghamUKB15 2TT
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of BirminghamNIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research CentreBirminghamUK
| | - Clare Davenport
- University of BirminghamInstitute of Applied Health ResearchBirminghamUKB15 2TT
| | | | - Hamid Tehrani
- Whiston HospitalDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryWarrington RoadLiverpoolUKL35 5DR
| | - Hywel C Williams
- University of NottinghamCentre of Evidence Based DermatologyQueen's Medical CentreDerby RoadNottinghamUKNG7 2UH
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Dinnes J, Deeks JJ, Chuchu N, Ferrante di Ruffano L, Matin RN, Thomson DR, Wong KY, Aldridge RB, Abbott R, Fawzy M, Bayliss SE, Grainge MJ, Takwoingi Y, Davenport C, Godfrey K, Walter FM, Williams HC. Dermoscopy, with and without visual inspection, for diagnosing melanoma in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 12:CD011902. [PMID: 30521682 PMCID: PMC6517096 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011902.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 69] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Melanoma has one of the fastest rising incidence rates of any cancer. It accounts for a small percentage of skin cancer cases but is responsible for the majority of skin cancer deaths. Although history-taking and visual inspection of a suspicious lesion by a clinician are usually the first in a series of 'tests' to diagnose skin cancer, dermoscopy has become an important tool to assist diagnosis by specialist clinicians and is increasingly used in primary care settings. Dermoscopy is a magnification technique using visible light that allows more detailed examination of the skin compared to examination by the naked eye alone. Establishing the additive value of dermoscopy over and above visual inspection alone across a range of observers and settings is critical to understanding its contribution for the diagnosis of melanoma and to future understanding of the potential role of the growing number of other high-resolution image analysis techniques. OBJECTIVES To determine the diagnostic accuracy of dermoscopy alone, or when added to visual inspection of a skin lesion, for the detection of cutaneous invasive melanoma and atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants in adults. We separated studies according to whether the diagnosis was recorded face-to-face (in-person), or based on remote (image-based), assessment. SEARCH METHODS We undertook a comprehensive search of the following databases from inception up to August 2016: CENTRAL; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; CPCI; Zetoc; Science Citation Index; US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register; NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio Database; and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We studied reference lists and published systematic review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA Studies of any design that evaluated dermoscopy in adults with lesions suspicious for melanoma, compared with a reference standard of either histological confirmation or clinical follow-up. Data on the accuracy of visual inspection, to allow comparisons of tests, was included only if reported in the included studies of dermoscopy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently extracted all data using a standardised data extraction and quality assessment form (based on QUADAS-2). We contacted authors of included studies where information related to the target condition or diagnostic threshold were missing. We estimated accuracy using hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC),methods. Analysis of studies allowing direct comparison between tests was undertaken. To facilitate interpretation of results, we computed values of sensitivity at the point on the SROC curve with 80% fixed specificity and values of specificity with 80% fixed sensitivity. We investigated the impact of in-person test interpretation; use of a purposely developed algorithm to assist diagnosis; observer expertise; and dermoscopy training. MAIN RESULTS We included a total of 104 study publications reporting on 103 study cohorts with 42,788 lesions (including 5700 cases), providing 354 datasets for dermoscopy. The risk of bias was mainly low for the index test and reference standard domains and mainly high or unclear for participant selection and participant flow. Concerns regarding the applicability of study findings were largely scored as 'high' concern in three of four domains assessed. Selective participant recruitment, lack of reproducibility of diagnostic thresholds and lack of detail on observer expertise were particularly problematic.The accuracy of dermoscopy for the detection of invasive melanoma or atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants was reported in 86 datasets; 26 for evaluations conducted in person (dermoscopy added to visual inspection), and 60 for image-based evaluations (diagnosis based on interpretation of dermoscopic images). Analyses of studies by prior testing revealed no obvious effect on accuracy; analyses were hampered by the lack of studies in primary care, lack of relevant information and the restricted inclusion of lesions selected for biopsy or excision. Accuracy was higher for in-person diagnosis compared to image-based evaluations (relative diagnostic odds ratio (RDOR) 4.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4 to 9.0; P < 0.001).We compared accuracy for (a), in-person evaluations of dermoscopy (26 evaluations; 23,169 lesions and 1664 melanomas),versus visual inspection alone (13 evaluations; 6740 lesions and 459 melanomas), and for (b), image-based evaluations of dermoscopy (60 evaluations; 13,475 lesions and 2851 melanomas),versus image-based visual inspection (11 evaluations; 1740 lesions and 305 melanomas). For both comparisons, meta-analysis found dermoscopy to be more accurate than visual inspection alone, with RDORs of (a), 4.7 (95% CI 3.0 to 7.5; P < 0.001), and (b), 5.6 (95% CI 3.7 to 8.5; P < 0.001). For a), the predicted difference in sensitivity at a fixed specificity of 80% was 16% (95% CI 8% to 23%; 92% for dermoscopy + visual inspection versus 76% for visual inspection), and predicted difference in specificity at a fixed sensitivity of 80% was 20% (95% CI 7% to 33%; 95% for dermoscopy + visual inspection versus 75% for visual inspection). For b) the predicted differences in sensitivity was 34% (95% CI 24% to 46%; 81% for dermoscopy versus 47% for visual inspection), at a fixed specificity of 80%, and predicted difference in specificity was 40% (95% CI 27% to 57%; 82% for dermoscopy versus 42% for visual inspection), at a fixed sensitivity of 80%.Using the median prevalence of disease in each set of studies ((a), 12% for in-person and (b), 24% for image-based), for a hypothetical population of 1000 lesions, an increase in sensitivity of (a), 16% (in-person), and (b), 34% (image-based), from using dermoscopy at a fixed specificity of 80% equates to a reduction in the number of melanomas missed of (a), 19 and (b), 81 with (a), 176 and (b), 152 false positive results. An increase in specificity of (a), 20% (in-person), and (b), 40% (image-based), at a fixed sensitivity of 80% equates to a reduction in the number of unnecessary excisions from using dermoscopy of (a), 176 and (b), 304 with (a), 24 and (b), 48 melanomas missed.The use of a named or published algorithm to assist dermoscopy interpretation (as opposed to no reported algorithm or reported use of pattern analysis), had no significant impact on accuracy either for in-person (RDOR 1.4, 95% CI 0.34 to 5.6; P = 0.17), or image-based (RDOR 1.4, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.3; P = 0.22), evaluations. This result was supported by subgroup analysis according to algorithm used. We observed higher accuracy for observers reported as having high experience and for those classed as 'expert consultants' in comparison to those considered to have less experience in dermoscopy, particularly for image-based evaluations. Evidence for the effect of dermoscopy training on test accuracy was very limited but suggested associated improvements in sensitivity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Despite the observed limitations in the evidence base, dermoscopy is a valuable tool to support the visual inspection of a suspicious skin lesion for the detection of melanoma and atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants, particularly in referred populations and in the hands of experienced users. Data to support its use in primary care are limited, however, it may assist in triaging suspicious lesions for urgent referral when employed by suitably trained clinicians. Formal algorithms may be of most use for dermoscopy training purposes and for less expert observers, however reliable data comparing approaches using dermoscopy in person are lacking.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacqueline Dinnes
- University of BirminghamInstitute of Applied Health ResearchBirminghamUKB15 2TT
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of BirminghamNIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research CentreBirminghamUK
| | - Jonathan J Deeks
- University of BirminghamInstitute of Applied Health ResearchBirminghamUKB15 2TT
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of BirminghamNIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research CentreBirminghamUK
| | - Naomi Chuchu
- University of BirminghamInstitute of Applied Health ResearchBirminghamUKB15 2TT
| | | | - Rubeta N Matin
- Churchill HospitalDepartment of DermatologyOld RoadHeadingtonOxfordUKOX3 7LE
| | | | - Kai Yuen Wong
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryOxfordUK
| | - Roger Benjamin Aldridge
- NHS Lothian/University of EdinburghDepartment of Plastic Surgery25/6 India StreetEdinburghUKEH3 6HE
| | - Rachel Abbott
- University Hospital of WalesWelsh Institute of DermatologyHeath ParkCardiffUKCF14 4XW
| | - Monica Fawzy
- Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS TrustDepartment of Plastic and Reconstructive SurgeryColney LaneNorwichUKNR4 7UY
| | - Susan E Bayliss
- University of BirminghamInstitute of Applied Health ResearchBirminghamUKB15 2TT
| | - Matthew J Grainge
- School of MedicineDivision of Epidemiology and Public HealthUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUKNG7 2UH
| | - Yemisi Takwoingi
- University of BirminghamInstitute of Applied Health ResearchBirminghamUKB15 2TT
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of BirminghamNIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research CentreBirminghamUK
| | - Clare Davenport
- University of BirminghamInstitute of Applied Health ResearchBirminghamUKB15 2TT
| | - Kathie Godfrey
- The University of Nottinghamc/o Cochrane Skin GroupNottinghamUK
| | - Fiona M Walter
- University of CambridgePublic Health & Primary CareStrangeways Research Laboratory, Worts CausewayCambridgeUKCB1 8RN
| | - Hywel C Williams
- University of NottinghamCentre of Evidence Based DermatologyQueen's Medical CentreDerby RoadNottinghamUKNG7 2UH
| | | | | |
Collapse
|