A Zink1, A Kolbinger1, M Leibl1, I Léon Suarez1, J Gloning1,2, C Merkel1, J Winkler1, T Biedermann1, J Ring1,2, B Eberlein3. 1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Dermatologie und Allergologie am Biederstein, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Biedersteiner Str. 29, 80802, München, Deutschland. 2. Christine Kühne Center for Allergy Research and Education (CK-CARE), Davos, Schweiz. 3. Klinik und Poliklinik für Dermatologie und Allergologie am Biederstein, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Biedersteiner Str. 29, 80802, München, Deutschland. bernadette.eberlein@tum.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Teledermoscopy is a promising modern technique to complement or to substitute dermatologic examination. OBJECTIVE: In this pilot study, we compared the outcomes of teledermoscopic consultations with clinical examinations and histologic results. METHODS: Conventional and dermatoscopic photos of single lesions were taken in 26 patients using a mobile phone and an attached handyscope optical system. Five resident physicians performed a clinical examination including dermoscopy while the teledermatologic and teledermoscopic photos were assessed by an experienced dermatologist. Examination results were compared regarding diagnosis, differential diagnoses, recommended further management, as well as subjective and objective accuracy of diagnosis. In addition, 23% of the lesions were excised and histologically examined. RESULTS: The most frequent diagnosis was "nevus cell nevus", followed by "subungual hematoma" and "basal cell carcinoma". The concordance of diagnoses was 92.3%; the concordance of recommended further management was 76.9%. Of the 6 histologically proven diagnoses, 66.7% were given the same diagnosis by teledermatoscopy and conventional clinical assessment. Concerning accuracy of diagnosis, teledermoscopy showed no disadvantage. CONCLUSIONS: Teledermatologic photos of single lesions combined with teledermatoscopic photos can be reliably and safely assessed. Especially when access to dermatologic examination is difficult, mobile teledermoscopy is a good and reliable alternative.
BACKGROUND: Teledermoscopy is a promising modern technique to complement or to substitute dermatologic examination. OBJECTIVE: In this pilot study, we compared the outcomes of teledermoscopic consultations with clinical examinations and histologic results. METHODS: Conventional and dermatoscopic photos of single lesions were taken in 26 patients using a mobile phone and an attached handyscope optical system. Five resident physicians performed a clinical examination including dermoscopy while the teledermatologic and teledermoscopic photos were assessed by an experienced dermatologist. Examination results were compared regarding diagnosis, differential diagnoses, recommended further management, as well as subjective and objective accuracy of diagnosis. In addition, 23% of the lesions were excised and histologically examined. RESULTS: The most frequent diagnosis was "nevus cell nevus", followed by "subungual hematoma" and "basal cell carcinoma". The concordance of diagnoses was 92.3%; the concordance of recommended further management was 76.9%. Of the 6 histologically proven diagnoses, 66.7% were given the same diagnosis by teledermatoscopy and conventional clinical assessment. Concerning accuracy of diagnosis, teledermoscopy showed no disadvantage. CONCLUSIONS: Teledermatologic photos of single lesions combined with teledermatoscopic photos can be reliably and safely assessed. Especially when access to dermatologic examination is difficult, mobile teledermoscopy is a good and reliable alternative.
Authors: R P Braun; M Meier; F Pelloni; A A Ramelet; M Schilling; B Tapernoux; W Thürlimann; J H Saurat; J Krischer Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: J Dahlén Gyllencreutz; J Paoli; M Bjellerup; Z Bucharbajeva; H Gonzalez; K Nielsen; C Sandberg; I Synnerstad; K Terstappen; A-M Wennberg Larkö Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Alexander Börve; Johan Dahlén Gyllencreutz; Karin Terstappen; Eva Johansson Backman; Anette Aldenbratt; Markus Danielsson; Martin Gillstedt; Carin Sandberg; John Paoli Journal: Acta Derm Venereol Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 4.437
Authors: John S Barbieri; Caroline A Nelson; William D James; David J Margolis; Ryan Littman-Quinn; Carrie L Kovarik; Misha Rosenbach Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Job P van der Heijden; Leonie Thijssing; Leonard Witkamp; Phyllis I Spuls; Nicolette F de Keizer Journal: J Telemed Telecare Date: 2013-09-09 Impact factor: 6.184
Authors: Danielle Boehmer; Barbara Schuster; Julia Krause; Ulf Darsow; Tilo Biedermann; Alexander Zink Journal: World Allergy Organ J Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 4.084