Richard Marchell1, Craig Locatis2, Gene Burges3, Richard Maisiak4, Wei-Li Liu2, Michael Ackerman2. 1. 1 Department of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina , Charleston, South Carolina. 2. 2 National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health , Bethesda, Maryland. 3. 3 Department of Dermatology and Dermatologic Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina , (Deceased). 4. 4 University of Alabama at Birmingham , Birmingham, Alabama.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is little teledermatology research directly comparing remote methods, even less research with two in-person dermatologist agreement providing a baseline for comparing remote methods, and no research using high definition video as a live interactive method. OBJECTIVE: To compare in-person consultations with store-and-forward and live interactive methods, the latter having two levels of image quality. METHODS: A controlled study was conducted where patients were examined in-person, by high definition video, and by store-and-forward methods. The order patients experienced methods and residents assigned methods rotated, although an attending always saw patients in-person. The type of high definition video employed, lower resolution compressed or higher resolution uncompressed, was alternated between clinics. Primary and differential diagnoses, biopsy recommendations, and diagnostic and biopsy confidence ratings were recorded. RESULTS: Concordance and confidence were significantly better for in-person versus remote methods and biopsy recommendations were lower. Store-and-forward and higher resolution uncompressed video results were similar and better than those for lower resolution compressed video. LIMITATIONS: Dermatology residents took store-and-forward photos and their quality was likely superior to those normally taken in practice. There were variations in expertise between the attending and second and third year residents. CONCLUSION: The superiority of in-person consultations suggests the tendencies to order more biopsies or still see patients in-person are often justified in teledermatology and that high resolution uncompressed video can close the resolution gap between store-and-forward and live interactive methods.
BACKGROUND: There is little teledermatology research directly comparing remote methods, even less research with two in-person dermatologist agreement providing a baseline for comparing remote methods, and no research using high definition video as a live interactive method. OBJECTIVE: To compare in-person consultations with store-and-forward and live interactive methods, the latter having two levels of image quality. METHODS: A controlled study was conducted where patients were examined in-person, by high definition video, and by store-and-forward methods. The order patients experienced methods and residents assigned methods rotated, although an attending always saw patients in-person. The type of high definition video employed, lower resolution compressed or higher resolution uncompressed, was alternated between clinics. Primary and differential diagnoses, biopsy recommendations, and diagnostic and biopsy confidence ratings were recorded. RESULTS: Concordance and confidence were significantly better for in-person versus remote methods and biopsy recommendations were lower. Store-and-forward and higher resolution uncompressed video results were similar and better than those for lower resolution compressed video. LIMITATIONS: Dermatology residents took store-and-forward photos and their quality was likely superior to those normally taken in practice. There were variations in expertise between the attending and second and third year residents. CONCLUSION: The superiority of in-person consultations suggests the tendencies to order more biopsies or still see patients in-person are often justified in teledermatology and that high resolution uncompressed video can close the resolution gap between store-and-forward and live interactive methods.
Authors: Ryan Tandjung; Nina Badertscher; Nadine Kleiner; Michel Wensing; Thomas Rosemann; Ralph P Braun; Oliver Senn Journal: J Eval Clin Pract Date: 2015-02-02 Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: M A Loane; S E Bloomer; R Corbett; D J Eedy; N Hicks; H E Lotery; C Mathews; J Paisley; K Steele; R Wootton Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 9.302
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: Cesar Leal-Costa; Antonio Lopez-Villegas; Mercedes Perez-Heredia; Miguel Angel Baena-Lopez; Carlos Javier Hernandez-Montoya; Remedios Lopez-Liria Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-09-21 Impact factor: 4.964
Authors: Titus Josef Brinker; Achim Hekler; Christof von Kalle; Dirk Schadendorf; Stefan Esser; Carola Berking; Martina T Zacher; Wiebke Sondermann; Niels Grabe; Theresa Steeb; Jochen Sven Utikal; Lars E French; Alexander H Enk Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-10-24 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Lucas Martinus Seuren; Joseph Wherton; Trisha Greenhalgh; Deborah Cameron; Christine A'Court; Sara E Shaw Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 5.428