Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35270227›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Teledermatology versus Face-to-Face Dermatology: An Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness from Eight Studies from Europe and the United States.

Remedios López-Liria, María Ángeles Valverde-Martínez, Antonio López-Villegas, Rafael Jesús Bautista-Mesa, Francisco Antonio Vega-Ramírez, Salvador Peiró, Cesar Leal-Costa

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. The Past, the Present and the Future of Teledermatology: A Narrative Review.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2024
    Review
  14. Review of Teledermatology: Lessons Learned from the COVID-19 Pandemic.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Remedios López-LiriaHealth Research Centre, Department of Nursing, Physiotherapy and Medicine, University of Almería, Carretera del Sacramento s/n, La Cañada de San Urbano, 04120 Almeria, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3416-2791
María Ángeles Valverde-MartínezHealth Research Centre, Department of Nursing, Physiotherapy and Medicine, University of Almería, Carretera del Sacramento s/n, La Cañada de San Urbano, 04120 Almeria, Spain.
Antonio López-VillegasSocial Involvement of Critical and Emergency Medicine, CTS-609 Research Group, Poniente Hospital, 04700 El Ejido, Spain.
Rafael Jesús Bautista-MesaEconomic-Financial Directorate, Alto Guadalquivir Health Agency, 23740 Andujar, Spain.
Francisco Antonio Vega-RamírezHum-498 Research Team, University of Almeria, 04120 Almeria, Spain.
Salvador PeiróHealth Services Research Unit, FISABIO-Public Health, 46020 Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-3902-569X
Cesar Leal-CostaNursing Department, University of Murcia, 30120 El Palmar, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7711-3877

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: The aim of this systematic review was to compare the cost-effectiveness of two follow-up methods (face-to-face and telemedicine) used in dermatology in the last ten years. (2) Methods: A search for articles that included economic analyses was conducted in August 2021 in the databases PubMed, Medline, Scielo and Scopus using the following keywords: "Cost-Benefit Analysis", "Dermatology", "Telemedicine", "Primary Health Care", as well as other search terms and following the PICOS eligibility criteria. (3) Results: Three clinical trials and five observational studies were analyzed, providing information for approximately 16,539 patients (including four cost-minimization or saving analyses, three cost-effectiveness analyses, and one cost-utility analysis) in Europe and the United States. They describe the follow-up procedures in each of the cases and measure and analyze the direct and indirect costs and effectiveness. All the articles indicate that teledermatology lowers costs and proves satisfactory to both patients and professionals. (4) Conclusions: Although it has been found that follow-up via teledermatology can be more efficient than traditional hospital follow-up, more work is needed to establish evaluation protocols and procedures that measure key variables more equally and demonstrate the quality of the evidence of said studies.

Indexed as

DermatologyTelemedicineCost-Benefit AnalysisEuropeHumansUnited Statescost–benefit analysisfollow-up studieshealth-related quality of lifepacemakersteledermatologytelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID35270227
PMCPMC8909884

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.