OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a store-and-forward teledermatology system aimed at the routine triage of patients with skin cancer. DESIGN: A multicenter, longitudinal, 4-phase, descriptive and evaluation study of a referred sample of patients attended through teleconsultation between March 2004 and July 2005 (n = 2009). Clinical and dermoscopical examination and histopathological study were considered the gold standard. SETTING: A skin cancer unit of a public university hospital and 12 primary care centers in southern Spain. PATIENTS: The study population comprised patients with circumscribed lesions fulfilling at least 1 of the following criteria: changes in ABCD criteria (asymmetry, border irregularity, color variegation, and diameter >6 mm), recent history, multiple melanocytic lesions, symptoms, and/or patient's application for surgical treatment and concern about moles. INTERVENTIONS: Diagnosis, diagnostic category (malignant lesions, high-risk lesions, benign lesions, special lesions, and other lesions), diagnostic confidence level on a 3-point scale, and management decision (referral vs nonreferral) were listed after the evaluation of each teleconsultation. A face-to-face evaluation and biopsy of selected patients were performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The filtering percentage, as the percentage of patients not referred to the face-to-face clinic, as well as waiting intervals and pick-up or skin cancer detection rates were evaluated as effectiveness indicators. Reliability measures (kappa agreement), accuracy, and diagnostic performance indicators (validity) were also evaluated. RESULTS: The filtering percentage was 51.20% (95% confidence interval [CI], 49.00%-53.40%). The waiting interval to attend the clinic was 12.31 days (95% CI, 8.22-16.40 days) through teledermatology and 88.62 days (95% CI, 38.42-138.82 days; P<.001) for the letter referral system. Pick-up rates were 2.02% (95% CI, 1.10%-2.94%) for malignant melanoma and 27.94% (95% CI, 24.98%-30.90%) or 1:3.71 for patients with any malignant or premalignant lesion. Intraobserver agreement was kappa = 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89-0.93) for the management decision and kappa = 0.95 (95% CI, 0.94-0.96) for the diagnosis. Interobserver concordance was kappa = 0.83 (95% CI, 0.78-0.88) for the management decision and kappa = 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79-0.91) for the diagnosis. Accuracy was kappa = 0.81 (95% CI, 0.78-0.84). Sensitivity was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00); specificity, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56-0.69); pretest likelihood, 0.42 (95% CI, 0.37-0.47); positive posttest likelihood, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69); and negative posttest likelihood, 0.01 (95% CI, 0.00-0.05). CONCLUSION: Store-and-forward teledermatology has demonstrated in this series to be an effective, accurate, reliable, and valid approach for the routine management of patient referrals in skin cancer and pigmented lesion clinics.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a store-and-forward teledermatology system aimed at the routine triage of patients with skin cancer. DESIGN: A multicenter, longitudinal, 4-phase, descriptive and evaluation study of a referred sample of patients attended through teleconsultation between March 2004 and July 2005 (n = 2009). Clinical and dermoscopical examination and histopathological study were considered the gold standard. SETTING: A skin cancer unit of a public university hospital and 12 primary care centers in southern Spain. PATIENTS: The study population comprised patients with circumscribed lesions fulfilling at least 1 of the following criteria: changes in ABCD criteria (asymmetry, border irregularity, color variegation, and diameter >6 mm), recent history, multiple melanocytic lesions, symptoms, and/or patient's application for surgical treatment and concern about moles. INTERVENTIONS: Diagnosis, diagnostic category (malignant lesions, high-risk lesions, benign lesions, special lesions, and other lesions), diagnostic confidence level on a 3-point scale, and management decision (referral vs nonreferral) were listed after the evaluation of each teleconsultation. A face-to-face evaluation and biopsy of selected patients were performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The filtering percentage, as the percentage of patients not referred to the face-to-face clinic, as well as waiting intervals and pick-up or skin cancer detection rates were evaluated as effectiveness indicators. Reliability measures (kappa agreement), accuracy, and diagnostic performance indicators (validity) were also evaluated. RESULTS: The filtering percentage was 51.20% (95% confidence interval [CI], 49.00%-53.40%). The waiting interval to attend the clinic was 12.31 days (95% CI, 8.22-16.40 days) through teledermatology and 88.62 days (95% CI, 38.42-138.82 days; P<.001) for the letter referral system. Pick-up rates were 2.02% (95% CI, 1.10%-2.94%) for malignant melanoma and 27.94% (95% CI, 24.98%-30.90%) or 1:3.71 for patients with any malignant or premalignant lesion. Intraobserver agreement was kappa = 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89-0.93) for the management decision and kappa = 0.95 (95% CI, 0.94-0.96) for the diagnosis. Interobserver concordance was kappa = 0.83 (95% CI, 0.78-0.88) for the management decision and kappa = 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79-0.91) for the diagnosis. Accuracy was kappa = 0.81 (95% CI, 0.78-0.84). Sensitivity was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00); specificity, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56-0.69); pretest likelihood, 0.42 (95% CI, 0.37-0.47); positive posttest likelihood, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69); and negative posttest likelihood, 0.01 (95% CI, 0.00-0.05). CONCLUSION: Store-and-forward teledermatology has demonstrated in this series to be an effective, accurate, reliable, and valid approach for the routine management of patient referrals in skin cancer and pigmented lesion clinics.
Authors: Rashid L Bashshur; Gary W Shannon; Trilokraj Tejasvi; Joseph C Kvedar; Michael Gates Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 3.536
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: Centaine L Snoswell; Liam J Caffery; Jennifer A Whitty; H Peter Soyer; Louisa G Gordon Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 10.282
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: Rahat S Azfar; Robert A Lee; Leslie Castelo-Soccio; Martin S Greenberg; Warren B Bilker; Joel M Gelfand; Carrie L Kovarik Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Naomi Chuchu; Jacqueline Dinnes; Yemisi Takwoingi; Rubeta N Matin; Susan E Bayliss; Clare Davenport; Jacqueline F Moreau; Oliver Bassett; Kathie Godfrey; Colette O'Sullivan; Fiona M Walter; Richard Motley; Jonathan J Deeks; Hywel C Williams Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-12-04
Authors: Carlos Eduardo Goulart Silveira; Thiago Buosi Silva; José Humberto Guerreiro Tavares Fregnani; René Aloisio da Costa Vieira; Raphael Luiz Haikel; Kari Syrjänen; André Lopes Carvalho; Edmundo Carvalho Mauad Journal: BMC Dermatol Date: 2014-12-24