OBJECTIVES: To determine the DA and cost-effectiveness of the dermoscope in primary care for skin lesions suspected of malignancy. METHODS: In a cluster randomized clinical trial, 48 Dutch general practices were randomized to either intervention group using a dermoscope or control group using only naked-eye examination. A total of 194 lesions from 170 patients in the intervention group and 222 lesions from 211 patients in the control group were analysed for DA and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The percentage of correctly diagnosed lesions in intervention group and control group was 50.5% and 40.5% respectively. This was 61.5% and 22.2% for melanomas. In the intervention group, three malignancies were treated with the expectative treatment option compared to none in the control group. The odds ratio (OR) of a correct diagnosis in the intervention group, compared to control group, was 1.51 (95% CI: 0.96–2.37) P = 0.07. Consequently, the relative risk was 1.25. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €89 (95% CI −€60 to €598), indicating that using a dermoscope costs an additional €89 for one additional correctly diagnosed patient. Additional analyses showed better effects of dermoscopy compared to the control group for 98% of the bootstrap resamples. CONCLUSIONS: The probability of a correct diagnosis was 1.25 times higher using a dermoscope than without a dermoscope. Although this difference is marginally not statistically significant, dermoscopy in general practice appears to be cost effective. We therefore think that GPs should be trained to use a dermoscope, although they should realize that even with the use of a dermoscope not all lesions will be diagnosed correctly.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To determine the DA and cost-effectiveness of the dermoscope in primary care for skin lesions suspected of malignancy. METHODS: In a cluster randomized clinical trial, 48 Dutch general practices were randomized to either intervention group using a dermoscope or control group using only naked-eye examination. A total of 194 lesions from 170 patients in the intervention group and 222 lesions from 211 patients in the control group were analysed for DA and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The percentage of correctly diagnosed lesions in intervention group and control group was 50.5% and 40.5% respectively. This was 61.5% and 22.2% for melanomas. In the intervention group, three malignancies were treated with the expectative treatment option compared to none in the control group. The odds ratio (OR) of a correct diagnosis in the intervention group, compared to control group, was 1.51 (95% CI: 0.96–2.37) P = 0.07. Consequently, the relative risk was 1.25. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €89 (95% CI −€60 to €598), indicating that using a dermoscope costs an additional €89 for one additional correctly diagnosed patient. Additional analyses showed better effects of dermoscopy compared to the control group for 98% of the bootstrap resamples. CONCLUSIONS: The probability of a correct diagnosis was 1.25 times higher using a dermoscope than without a dermoscope. Although this difference is marginally not statistically significant, dermoscopy in general practice appears to be cost effective. We therefore think that GPs should be trained to use a dermoscope, although they should realize that even with the use of a dermoscope not all lesions will be diagnosed correctly.
Authors: Frank M Perna; Laura A Dwyer; Gina Tesauro; Jennifer M Taber; Wynne E Norton; Anne M Hartman; Alan C Geller Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Ashley E Brown; Maleka Najmi; Taylor Duke; Daniel A Grabell; Misha V Koshelev; Kelly C Nelson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-06-16 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Andreas Blum; Graeme Siggs; Ashfaq A Marghoob; Jürgen Kreusch; Horacio Cabo; Gabriella Campos-do-Carmo; Ana Flávia Cavalcanti Shiraishi; Alexander Kienitz; Cayetana Maldonado-Seral; Paola Maltagliati-Holzner; Zeljko P Mijuskovic; Andrea M Yoshimura; Elvira Moscarella; Harold S Rabinovitz; Cristina Rodriguez-Garcia; Sonia Rodríguez Saa; Pietro Rubegni; Francesco Savoia; Olga Simionescu; Pedro Zaballos Diego; Rainer Hofmann-Wellenhof Journal: Dermatol Pract Concept Date: 2017-07-31
Authors: O T Jones; L C Jurascheck; M Utukuri; M M Pannebakker; J Emery; F M Walter Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2019-05-17 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: O T Jones; L C Jurascheck; M A van Melle; S Hickman; N P Burrows; P N Hall; J Emery; F M Walter Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Valeria De Bedout; Natalie M Williams; Ana M Muñoz; Ana M Londoño; Manuela Munera; Natalí Naranjo; Lina M Rodriguez; Alejandra M Toro; Feng Miao; Tulay Koru-Sengul; Natalia Jaimes Journal: Dermatol Pract Concept Date: 2021-01-29