ArticleInternational journal of women's dermatology2016
Patient and practitioner satisfaction with tele-dermatology including Australia's indigenous population: A systematic review of the literature.
Article in International journal of women's dermatology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Teledermatology versus Face-to-Face Dermatology: An Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness from Eight Studies from Europe and the United States.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Use of Smartphones for Early Detection of Melanoma: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Pooled it
- Are virtual consultations suitable for patients with vulval disease? A multicentre audit of outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic.Skin health and disease · 2023Article
- Perspectives and Experiences of Patient-Led Melanoma Surveillance Using Digital Technologies From Clinicians Involved in the MEL-SELF Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial: Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR dermatology · 2022Article
- Article
- Attitudes and perceived barriers toward store-and-forward teledermatology among primary care providers of the rural Mississippi.Archives of dermatological research · 2022Article
- Understanding digital health ecosystem from Australian citizens' perspective: A scoping review.PloS one · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- Evaluating healthcare practitioners' views on store-and-forward teledermoscopy services for the diagnosis of skin cancer.Digital healthArticle
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAustralia's health disparity, combined with evolving technologies, has evoked increasing interest and funding in health services that could address inequities. One such emerging service is tele-medicine.
objectiveThe purpose of this report is to discuss and evaluate the current literature regarding patient and practitioner satisfaction with tele-medicine, and more specifically tele-dermatology.
methodsWe searched for literature relevant to tele-dermatology use among Australia's indigenous population. We synthesized the literature in our report and identified elements of tele-dermatology not yet researched.
resultsMost significantly, all available research is currently based on descriptive studies and there is no validated tool to assess the efficacy of tele-dermatology. LIMITATIONS: No published research currently exists on the use of tele-dermatology among Australia's indigenous population.
conclusionA review of the literature shows that tele-dermatology is considered a valuable service, particularly to patients living in rural areas who might not otherwise have access to specialist care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.