Chinmayee Katragadda1, Anna Finnane2, H Peter Soyer3, Ashfaq A Marghoob4, Allan Halpern4, Josep Malvehy5, Harald Kittler6, Rainer Hofmann-Wellenhof7, Dennis Da Silva8, Ivo Abraham9, Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski10. 1. University of Arizona Center for Health Outcomes and Pharmacoeconomic Research, Tucson. 2. Dermatology Research Centre, Translational Research Institute, School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 3. Dermatology Research Centre, Translational Research Institute, School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia3Dermatology Department, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia. 4. Dermatology Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York. 5. Department of Dermatology, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 6. Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Wien, Austria. 7. Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria. 8. Canfield Scientific, Fairfield, New Jersey. 9. University of Arizona Center for Health Outcomes and Pharmacoeconomic Research, Tucson9University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson. 10. University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson10Department of Dermatology, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Variability in the metrics for image acquisition at the total body, regional, close-up, and dermoscopic levels impacts the quality and generalizability of skin images. Consensus guidelines are indicated to achieve universal imaging standards in dermatology. OBJECTIVE: To achieve consensus among members of the International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC) on standards for image acquisition metrics using a hybrid Delphi method. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Delphi study with 5 rounds of ratings and revisions until relative consensus was achieved. The initial set of statements was developed by a core group (CG) on the basis of a literature review and clinical experience followed by 2 rounds of rating and revisions. The consensus process was validated by an extended group (EG) of ISIC members through 2 rounds of scoring and revisions. In all rounds, respondents rated the draft recommendations on a 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) scale, explained ratings of less than 5, and optionally provided comments. At any stage, a recommendation was retained if both mean and median rating was 4 or higher. RESULTS: The initial set of 45 items (round 1) was expanded by the CG to 56 variants in round 2, subsequently reduced to 42 items scored by the EG in round 3, yielding an EG set of 33 recommendations (rounds 4 and 5): general recommendation (1 guideline), lighting (5), background color (3), field of view (3), image orientation (8), focus/depth of field (3), resolution (4), scale (3), color calibration (2), and image storage (1). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This iterative process of ratings and comments yielded a strong consensus on standards for skin imaging in dermatology practice. Adoption of these methods for image standardization is likely to improve clinical practice, information exchange, electronic health record documentation, harmonization of clinical studies and database development, and clinical decision support. Feasibility and validity testing under real-world clinical conditions is indicated.
IMPORTANCE: Variability in the metrics for image acquisition at the total body, regional, close-up, and dermoscopic levels impacts the quality and generalizability of skin images. Consensus guidelines are indicated to achieve universal imaging standards in dermatology. OBJECTIVE: To achieve consensus among members of the International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC) on standards for image acquisition metrics using a hybrid Delphi method. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Delphi study with 5 rounds of ratings and revisions until relative consensus was achieved. The initial set of statements was developed by a core group (CG) on the basis of a literature review and clinical experience followed by 2 rounds of rating and revisions. The consensus process was validated by an extended group (EG) of ISIC members through 2 rounds of scoring and revisions. In all rounds, respondents rated the draft recommendations on a 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) scale, explained ratings of less than 5, and optionally provided comments. At any stage, a recommendation was retained if both mean and median rating was 4 or higher. RESULTS: The initial set of 45 items (round 1) was expanded by the CG to 56 variants in round 2, subsequently reduced to 42 items scored by the EG in round 3, yielding an EG set of 33 recommendations (rounds 4 and 5): general recommendation (1 guideline), lighting (5), background color (3), field of view (3), image orientation (8), focus/depth of field (3), resolution (4), scale (3), color calibration (2), and image storage (1). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This iterative process of ratings and comments yielded a strong consensus on standards for skin imaging in dermatology practice. Adoption of these methods for image standardization is likely to improve clinical practice, information exchange, electronic health record documentation, harmonization of clinical studies and database development, and clinical decision support. Feasibility and validity testing under real-world clinical conditions is indicated.
Authors: Christopher J Dy; Alison L Antes; Daniel A Osei; Charles A Goldfarb; James M DuBois Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Liam J Caffery; David Clunie; Clara Curiel-Lewandrowski; Josep Malvehy; H Peter Soyer; Allan C Halpern Journal: J Digit Imaging Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Lisa M Abbott; Robert Miller; Monika Janda; Haley Bennett; Monica Taylor; Chris Arnold; Stephen Shumack; H Peter Soyer; Liam J Caffery Journal: Australas J Dermatol Date: 2020-05-03 Impact factor: 2.875
Authors: Fabio Nery; Charlotte E Buchanan; Anita A Harteveld; Aghogho Odudu; Octavia Bane; Eleanor F Cox; Katja Derlin; H Michael Gach; Xavier Golay; Marcel Gutberlet; Christoffer Laustsen; Alexandra Ljimani; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Ivan Pedrosa; Pottumarthi V Prasad; Philip M Robson; Kanishka Sharma; Steven Sourbron; Manuel Taso; David L Thomas; Danny J J Wang; Jeff L Zhang; David C Alsop; Sean B Fain; Susan T Francis; María A Fernández-Seara Journal: MAGMA Date: 2019-12-12 Impact factor: 2.533