Rahat S Azfar1, Robert A Lee2, Leslie Castelo-Soccio3, Martin S Greenberg4, Warren B Bilker5, Joel M Gelfand1, Carrie L Kovarik3. 1. Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia2Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 2. Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of California-San Diego, San Diego. 3. Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. 4. Department of Oral Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine, Philadelphia. 5. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Mobile teledermatology may increase access to care. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether mobile teledermatology in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients in Gaborone, Botswana, was reliable and produced valid assessments compared with face-to-face dermatologic consultations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional study conducted in outpatient clinics and public inpatient settings in Botswana for 76 HIV-positive patients 18 years and older with a skin or mucosal condition that had not been evaluated by a dermatologist. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We calculated the κ coefficient for diagnosis, diagnostic category, and management for test-retest and interrater reliability. We also determined sensitivity and specificity for each diagnosis. RESULTS: The κ coefficient for test-retest reliability ranged from 0.47 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.59) to 0.78 (0.67 to 0.88) for the primary diagnosis, 0.29 (0.18 to 0.42) to 0.73 (0.61 to 0.84) for diagnostic category, and 0.17 (-0.01 to 0.36) to 0.54 (0.38 to 0.70) for management. The κ coefficient for interrater reliability ranged from 0.41 (95% CI, 0.31 to 0.52) to 0.51 (0.41 to 0.61) for the primary diagnosis, 0.22 (0.14 to 0.31) to 0.43 (0.34 to 0.53) for diagnostic category, and 0.08 (0.02 to 0.15) to 0.12 (0.01 to 0.23) for management. Sensitivity and specificity for the top 10 diagnoses varied from 0 to 0.88 and 0.84 to 1.00, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our results suggest that while the use of mobile teledermatology technology in HIV-positive patients in Botswana has significant potential for improving access to care, additional work is needed to improve the reliability and validity of this technology on a larger scale in this population.
IMPORTANCE: Mobile teledermatology may increase access to care. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether mobile teledermatology in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positivepatients in Gaborone, Botswana, was reliable and produced valid assessments compared with face-to-face dermatologic consultations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional study conducted in outpatient clinics and public inpatient settings in Botswana for 76 HIV-positivepatients 18 years and older with a skin or mucosal condition that had not been evaluated by a dermatologist. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We calculated the κ coefficient for diagnosis, diagnostic category, and management for test-retest and interrater reliability. We also determined sensitivity and specificity for each diagnosis. RESULTS: The κ coefficient for test-retest reliability ranged from 0.47 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.59) to 0.78 (0.67 to 0.88) for the primary diagnosis, 0.29 (0.18 to 0.42) to 0.73 (0.61 to 0.84) for diagnostic category, and 0.17 (-0.01 to 0.36) to 0.54 (0.38 to 0.70) for management. The κ coefficient for interrater reliability ranged from 0.41 (95% CI, 0.31 to 0.52) to 0.51 (0.41 to 0.61) for the primary diagnosis, 0.22 (0.14 to 0.31) to 0.43 (0.34 to 0.53) for diagnostic category, and 0.08 (0.02 to 0.15) to 0.12 (0.01 to 0.23) for management. Sensitivity and specificity for the top 10 diagnoses varied from 0 to 0.88 and 0.84 to 1.00, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our results suggest that while the use of mobile teledermatology technology in HIV-positivepatients in Botswana has significant potential for improving access to care, additional work is needed to improve the reliability and validity of this technology on a larger scale in this population.
Authors: Cesare Massone; Gian Piero Lozzi; Elisabeth Wurm; Rainer Hofmann-Wellenhof; Renate Schoellnast; Iris Zalaudek; Gerald Gabler; Alessandro Di Stefani; Helmut Kerl; H Peter Soyer Journal: Arch Dermatol Date: 2005-10
Authors: R P Braun; D Gutkowicz-Krusin; H Rabinovitz; A Cognetta; R Hofmann-Wellenhof; V Ahlgrimm-Siess; D Polsky; M Oliviero; I Kolm; P Googe; R King; V G Prieto; L French; A Marghoob; M Mihm Journal: Dermatology Date: 2012-03-20 Impact factor: 5.366
Authors: David Moreno-Ramirez; Lara Ferrandiz; Adoracion Nieto-Garcia; Rafael Carrasco; Pedro Moreno-Alvarez; Rafael Galdeano; Esther Bidegain; Juan J Rios-Martin; Francisco M Camacho Journal: Arch Dermatol Date: 2007-04
Authors: Rahat S Azfar; Jennifer L Weinberg; Gordana Cavric; Ivy A Lee-Keltner; Warren B Bilker; Joel M Gelfand; Carrie L Kovarik Journal: J Telemed Telecare Date: 2011-08-15 Impact factor: 6.184
Authors: R Corona; A Mele; M Amini; G De Rosa; G Coppola; P Piccardi; M Fucci; P Pasquini; T Faraggiana Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Boon-Kee Goh; Roy K W Chan; Priya Sen; Colin T S Theng; Hiok-Hee Tan; Yuan-Jing Wu; Nicholas I Paton Journal: Int J Dermatol Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 2.736