ReviewActas dermo-sifiliograficas2020
Medicolegal Aspects of Teledermatology.
Review in Actas dermo-sifiliograficas, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- European Dermatologists' Perception and Awareness of Teledermatology Use: Results From an International Survey Promoted by the EADV Teledermatology Task Force.International journal of dermatology · 2026Article
- The Role of General Practitioners in Actinic Keratosis Management in Europe: A Dermato-Oncologists Initiative.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- The Past, the Present and the Future of Teledermatology: A Narrative Review.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2024Review
- Applications of Telemedicine in Dermatology.Cureus · 2022Review
- Ethical and Legal Challenges of Telemedicine in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Review
- Physician Satisfaction With Telemedicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Mayo Clinic Florida Experience.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Teledermatology has facilitated specialist care during the crisis caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, eliminating unnecessary office visits and the possible exposure of patients or dermatologists. However, teledermatology brings forward certain ethical and medicolegal questions. A medical consultation in which the patient is not physically present is still a medical act, to which all the usual ethical and medicolegal considerations and consequences apply. The patient's right to autonomy and privacy, confidentiality, and data protection must be guaranteed. The patient must agree to remote consultation by giving informed consent, for which a safeguard clause should be included. Well-defined practice guidelines and uniform legislation are required to preserve the highest level of safety for transferred data. Adequate training is also needed to prevent circumstances involving what might be termed «telemalpractice».
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.