Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29801161›Full record

ArticleJAMA dermatology2018

Cost-effectiveness of Skin Cancer Referral and Consultation Using Teledermoscopy in Australia.

Centaine L Snoswell, Liam J Caffery, Jennifer A Whitty, H Peter Soyer, Louisa G Gordon

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA dermatology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Teledermatology in Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review.Journal of cutaneous medicine and surgery
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Patients' out-of-pocket expenses analysis of presurgical teledermatology.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2019
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Centaine L SnoswellSchool of Pharmacy, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Liam J CafferyCentre for Online Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Jennifer A WhittySchool of Pharmacy, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
H Peter SoyerDermatology Research Centre, University of Queensland, University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Translational Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia.
Louisa G GordonQIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: International literature has shown that teledermoscopy referral may be a viable method for skin cancer referral; however, no economic investigations have occurred in Australia. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of teledermoscopy as a referral mechanism for skin cancer diagnosis and management in Australia. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision-analytic model of Australian primary care, informed by publicly available data. Interventions: We compared the costs of teledermoscopy referral (electronic referral containing digital dermoscopic images) vs usual care (a written referral letter) for specialist dermatologist review of a suspected skin cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cost and time in days to clinical resolution, where clinical resolution was defined as diagnosis by a dermatologist or excision by a general practitioner. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the uncertainty of the main results. Results: Findings from the decision-analytic model showed that the mean time to clinical resolution was 9 days (range, 1-50 days) with teledermoscopy referral compared with 35 days (range, 0-138 days) with usual care alone (difference, 26 days; 95% credible interval [CrI], 13-38 days). The estimated mean cost difference between teledermoscopy referral (A$318.39) vs usual care (A$263.75) was A$54.64 (95% CrI, A$22.69-A$97.35) per person. The incremental cost per day saved to clinical resolution was A$2.10 (95% CrI, A$0.87-A$5.29). Conclusions and Relevance: Using teledermoscopy for skin cancer referral and triage in Australia would cost A$54.64 extra per case on average but would result in clinical resolution 26 days sooner than usual care. Implementation recommendations depend on the preferences of the Australian health system decision makers for either lower cost or expedited clinical resolution. Further research around the clinical significance of expedited clinical resolution and its importance for patients could inform implementation recommendations for the Australian setting.

Indexed as

AustraliaCost-Benefit AnalysisDermoscopyHumansReferral and ConsultationSkin NeoplasmsTelemedicineTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID29801161
PMCPMC6145645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.