N Eminović1, N F de Keizer, P J E Bindels, A Hasman. 1. Department of Medical Informatics, Academic Medical Centre, Meibergdreef 15, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. n.eminovic@amc.uva.nl
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in teledermatology in today's clinical practice, but the maturity of the evaluation research of this technology is still unclear. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review describes the maturity of teledermatology evaluation research over time and explores what kind of teledermatology outcome measures have been evaluated. METHODS: Systematic review of literature found in Medline database (1966 up to April 2006). A telemedicine evaluation strategy consisting of four consecutive research phases (parallel to drug and diagnostics evaluation research) extended with a fifth postimplementation phase was used to classify all included studies by two independent reviewers. In addition, main characteristics (store-and-forward or real-time, study design, outcome measures) were registered. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-five papers were systematically selected from Medline, and 244 papers were excluded. For two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), multiple papers in phase III were found. After correcting for this, 99 studies remained included (11 phase I, 72 phase II, two phase III, six phase IV, eight postimplementation phase). The number of phase II studies is the largest and still growing, while other phases are much less represented. Diagnostic accuracy was the most often used outcome measure and was found in phase I, II and IV. Store-and-forward teledermatology has been evaluated more since 2001, but most phase IV studies (RCTs, including cost aspects) are on real-time teledermatology. CONCLUSIONS: Most teledermatology evaluation studies are classified as feasibility studies (phase II). The number of phase III and IV studies remains low through the years. Compared with other specialties in telemedicine (i.e. telesurgery, telepaediatrics), teledermatology seems to be a mature application. However, more evaluation studies with a focus on clinical outcomes such as preventable referrals or time to recovery are needed to prove that teledermatology indeed is a promising and cost-saving technology.
BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in teledermatology in today's clinical practice, but the maturity of the evaluation research of this technology is still unclear. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review describes the maturity of teledermatology evaluation research over time and explores what kind of teledermatology outcome measures have been evaluated. METHODS: Systematic review of literature found in Medline database (1966 up to April 2006). A telemedicine evaluation strategy consisting of four consecutive research phases (parallel to drug and diagnostics evaluation research) extended with a fifth postimplementation phase was used to classify all included studies by two independent reviewers. In addition, main characteristics (store-and-forward or real-time, study design, outcome measures) were registered. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-five papers were systematically selected from Medline, and 244 papers were excluded. For two randomized controlled trials (RCTs), multiple papers in phase III were found. After correcting for this, 99 studies remained included (11 phase I, 72 phase II, two phase III, six phase IV, eight postimplementation phase). The number of phase II studies is the largest and still growing, while other phases are much less represented. Diagnostic accuracy was the most often used outcome measure and was found in phase I, II and IV. Store-and-forward teledermatology has been evaluated more since 2001, but most phase IV studies (RCTs, including cost aspects) are on real-time teledermatology. CONCLUSIONS: Most teledermatology evaluation studies are classified as feasibility studies (phase II). The number of phase III and IV studies remains low through the years. Compared with other specialties in telemedicine (i.e. telesurgery, telepaediatrics), teledermatology seems to be a mature application. However, more evaluation studies with a focus on clinical outcomes such as preventable referrals or time to recovery are needed to prove that teledermatology indeed is a promising and cost-saving technology.
Authors: Richard Marchell; Craig Locatis; Gene Burges; Richard Maisiak; Wei-Li Liu; Michael Ackerman Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2016-10-05 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Richard Marchell; Craig Locatis; Gene Burgess; Richard Maisiak; Wei-Li Liu; Michael Ackerman Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Rosa Taberner Ferrer; Antonio Pareja Bezares; Alex Llambrich Mañes; Antonia Vila Mas; Ignacio Torné Gutiérrez; Cristina Nadal Lladó; Guillermo Mas Estaràs Journal: Aten Primaria Date: 2009-06-05 Impact factor: 1.137
Authors: Nina Eminović; Marcel G Dijkgraaf; Rosanne M Berghout; Astrid H Prins; Patrick Je Bindels; Nicolette F de Keizer Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-08-25 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Adam R Ford; Caitlin M Gibbons; Josefina Torres; Heather A Kornmehl; Sanminder Singh; Paulina M Young; Cindy J Chambers; Emanual Maverakis; Cory A Dunnick; April W Armstrong Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2018-09-14 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: April W Armstrong; Adam R Ford; Cindy J Chambers; Emanual Maverakis; Cory A Dunnick; Mary-Margaret Chren; Joel M Gelfand; Caitlin M Gibbons; Brittany M Gibbons; Christianne J Lane Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2018-11-24 Impact factor: 8.551