Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

Error in κ Values in: In Vivo Microscopic Features of Nodular Melanomas: Dermoscopy, Confocal Microscopy, and Histopathologic Correlates

Error in κ Values in: In Vivo Microscopic Features of Nodular Melanomas: Dermoscopy, Confocal... Error in κ Values. In the article titled “In Vivo Microscopic Features of Nodular Melanomas: Dermoscopy, Confocal Microscopy, and Histopathologic Correlates,” by Segura et al, published in the October issue of the Archives (2008;144[10]:1311-1320), several κ values were reported incorrectly in the “Results” section on pages 1314 and 1315. On page 1314, left column, lines 10 through 13 should have read as follows: “Dots observed at dermoscopy correlated with pagetoid cells seen at RCM in 24 lesions (80%) and with histologic pagetoid spreading (κ = 0.50; P = .004).” On the same page, right column, “Dermoepidermal Junction” subsection, lines 2 through 7 should have read as follows: “The nonvisibility of dermal papillae resulted at confocal microscopy in the sudden transition between epidermal layers and dermal structures, corresponding at histologic analysis with a thin flattened epidermis overlying the tumor burden (κ = 0.50; P = .004).” Farther down, lines 13 through 19 should have read as follows: “In SSM lesions, the observation of dermal papillae at the dermoepidermal junction at RCM correlated with the presence of a network at dermoscopy (κ = 0.40; P = .005) and with the presence of elongated rete ridges (κ =0 .60; P = .004) in histologic sections (Figure 4D).” On page 1315, left column, “Dermis” subsection, lines 8 through 10 should have read as follows: “At dermoscopy, globules showed good correlation with histopathologic dermal nests (κ =0 .50; P = .01). ” On the same page and in the same column, lines 12 through 15 should have read as follows: “The observation of cerebriform clusters at RCM was associated with melanomas with a nodular pattern and deep tumoral infiltration (κ = 0.50; P = .001). ” On the same page, right column, lines 7 through 9 should have read as follows: “These structures corresponded to compact collagen bundles distributed around a tumoral mass (κ =0 .40; P = .005).” http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archives of Dermatology American Medical Association

Error in κ Values in: In Vivo Microscopic Features of Nodular Melanomas: Dermoscopy, Confocal Microscopy, and Histopathologic Correlates

Archives of Dermatology , Volume 145 (5) – May 1, 2009

Error in κ Values in: In Vivo Microscopic Features of Nodular Melanomas: Dermoscopy, Confocal Microscopy, and Histopathologic Correlates

Abstract

Error in κ Values. In the article titled “In Vivo Microscopic Features of Nodular Melanomas: Dermoscopy, Confocal Microscopy, and Histopathologic Correlates,” by Segura et al, published in the October issue of the Archives (2008;144[10]:1311-1320), several κ values were reported incorrectly in the “Results” section on pages 1314 and 1315. On page 1314, left column, lines 10 through 13 should have read as follows: “Dots observed at dermoscopy...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/error-in-values-in-in-vivo-microscopic-features-of-nodular-melanomas-PRhfcGeFsI
Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN
0003-987X
eISSN
1538-3652
DOI
10.1001/archdermatol.2009.99
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Error in κ Values. In the article titled “In Vivo Microscopic Features of Nodular Melanomas: Dermoscopy, Confocal Microscopy, and Histopathologic Correlates,” by Segura et al, published in the October issue of the Archives (2008;144[10]:1311-1320), several κ values were reported incorrectly in the “Results” section on pages 1314 and 1315. On page 1314, left column, lines 10 through 13 should have read as follows: “Dots observed at dermoscopy correlated with pagetoid cells seen at RCM in 24 lesions (80%) and with histologic pagetoid spreading (κ = 0.50; P = .004).” On the same page, right column, “Dermoepidermal Junction” subsection, lines 2 through 7 should have read as follows: “The nonvisibility of dermal papillae resulted at confocal microscopy in the sudden transition between epidermal layers and dermal structures, corresponding at histologic analysis with a thin flattened epidermis overlying the tumor burden (κ = 0.50; P = .004).” Farther down, lines 13 through 19 should have read as follows: “In SSM lesions, the observation of dermal papillae at the dermoepidermal junction at RCM correlated with the presence of a network at dermoscopy (κ = 0.40; P = .005) and with the presence of elongated rete ridges (κ =0 .60; P = .004) in histologic sections (Figure 4D).” On page 1315, left column, “Dermis” subsection, lines 8 through 10 should have read as follows: “At dermoscopy, globules showed good correlation with histopathologic dermal nests (κ =0 .50; P = .01). ” On the same page and in the same column, lines 12 through 15 should have read as follows: “The observation of cerebriform clusters at RCM was associated with melanomas with a nodular pattern and deep tumoral infiltration (κ = 0.50; P = .001). ” On the same page, right column, lines 7 through 9 should have read as follows: “These structures corresponded to compact collagen bundles distributed around a tumoral mass (κ =0 .40; P = .005).”

Journal

Archives of DermatologyAmerican Medical Association

Published: May 1, 2009

Keywords: microscopy, confocal,nodular melanoma,dermoscopy

There are no references for this article.