Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33835345›Full record

ReviewAmerican journal of clinical dermatology2021

Teledermatology During COVID-19: An Updated Review.

Morgan A Farr, Madeleine Duvic, Tejas P Joshi

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in American journal of clinical dermatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. [Acceptance of Teledermatology: Results of a Survey of General Practitioners and Dermatologists in Saxony (Germany)].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Cutaneous Reactions Following COVID-19 Vaccination: A Review of the Current Literature.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2022
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Morgan A FarrSchool of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Madeleine DuvicDepartment of Dermatology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Tejas P JoshiSchool of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, 1 Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. tejas.joshi@bcm.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7897-2940
Baylor College of Medicine · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has fundamentally transformed the landscape of providing dermatologic care. In an age of lockdowns and social distancing, teledermatology (TD) has emerged as a powerful tool to deliver remote care. Here, we review literature on TD use during the pandemic to evaluate the positives and negatives of TD implementation. We especially consider the reception of TD in underserved communities and the developing world as well as the ethico-legal challenges wrought by the burgeoning utilization of this new paradigm of care. The potential of TD to occupy a more prominent role in dermatologic care in a post-COVID-19 world is also discussed.

Indexed as

COVID-19DermatologyHumansPandemicsPneumonia, ViralSARS-CoV-2Telemedicine

Identifiers

PMID33835345
PMCPMC8032846
OpenAlexW3141537964

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.