Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36317859›Full record

Observational studyActa dermato-venereologica2022

Reasons for Dermatology Consultations in Nursing Homes and the Estimated Potential of Teledermatology as a Triage Tool.

Frederik M Klösters, Marieke E C Van Winden, Freya R Angenent, Lambertus Henrikus Van Bergen, Marjolein Van Steveninck-Wensing, Manon C Zweers, Ann F S Galimont-Collen, Ewald M Bronkhorst, Raymond T C M Koopmans, Satish F K Lubeek

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Acta dermato-venereologica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Frederik M KlöstersDepartment of Dermatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Box 102, NL-6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marieke E C Van WindenDepartment of Dermatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Box 102, NL-6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Freya R AngenentDe Waalboog "Joachim en Anna", Center for Specialized Geriatric Care, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Brabantzorg, Nursing Home Care, Oss.
Lambertus Henrikus Van BergenDepartment of Dermatology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Marjolein Van Steveninck-WensingDepartment of Dermatology, Gelre Hospital, Zutphen, The Netherlands.
Manon C ZweersDepartment of Dermatology, Bernhoven Hospital, Uden, The Netherlands.
Ann F S Galimont-CollenDermaTeam, Roosendaal/Bergen op Zoom/Middelburg, The Netherlands.
Ewald M BronkhorstDepartment of Health Evidence/Biostatistics, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Raymond T C M KoopmansDe Waalboog "Joachim en Anna", Center for Specialized Geriatric Care, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Satish F K LubeekDepartment of Dermatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Box 102, NL-6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Satish.Lubeek@radboudumc.nl.
Radboud University Medical Center · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLCanisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis · NLGelre Hospitals · NLZiekenhuis Bernhoven · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Considering the limited availability of dermatologists to perform live consultations in nursing homes, teledermatology could be used as a triage tool for selection of cases for which live consultations are considered to be of added value compared with teledermatology. This prospective, multicentre observational study aimed to determine the reasons for dermatology consultations in nursing homes and the estimated value of teledermatology as a triage tool, including potential predictors. Skin tumours were the most common reason (n = 161/270; 59.6%) for dermatology consultations in nursing homes. Dermatologists estimated that live consultations added value compared with teledermatology in 67.8% of cases (n = 183). Multivariable logistic regression showed that predictors for this added value of live consultations were: consultations because of a skin tumour; consultations during which a diagnostic or treatment procedure was performed; consultations during which a secondary diagnosis was made; and the dermatologist involved. These results indicate that using teledermatology as a triage tool potentially reduces the need for additional live consultations in one-third of patients, whereas live consultations are estimated to have added value over teledermatology in two-thirds of cases. To make optimal use of the limited capacity for live consultations by dermatologists, it could therefore be helpful if elderly care physicians use teledermatology more frequently.

Indexed as

DermatologySkin DiseasesSkin NeoplasmsTelemedicineAgedHumansNursing HomesProspective StudiesReferral and ConsultationTriage

Identifiers

PMID36317859
PMCPMC9811285
OpenAlexW4307833477

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.