ArticleJMIR dermatology2022
To Refer or Not to Refer in Teledermoscopy: Retrospective Study.
Article in JMIR dermatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Primary Care Skin Lesion Referrals Assessed via Teledermatology: A Retrospective Analysis.Cureus · 2025Article
- Increased use of Dermoscopy in Primary Healthcare Following the Implementation of Teledermatology in Southeast Sweden: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 2,137 Patients.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2024Article
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
backgroundChallenges remain for general practitioners (GPs) in diagnosing (pre)malignant and benign skin lesions. Teledermoscopy (TDsc) supports GPs in diagnosing these skin lesions guided by teledermatologists' (TDs) diagnosis and advice and prevents unnecessary referrals to dermatology care. However, the impact of the availability of TDsc on GPs' self-reported referral decisions to dermatology care before and after the TDsc consultation is unknown.
objectiveThe objective of this study is to assess and compare the initial self-reported referral decisions of GPs before TDsc versus their final self-reported referral decisions after TDsc for skin lesions diagnosed by the TD as (pre)malignant or benign.
methodsTDsc consultations requested by GPs in daily practice between July 2015 and June 2020 with a TD assessment and diagnosis were extracted from a nationwide Dutch telemedicine database. Based on GP self-administered questions, the GPs' referral decisions before and their final referral decision after TDsc consultation were assessed for (pre)malignant and benign TD diagnoses.
resultsGP self-administered questions and TD diagnoses were evaluated for 6364 TDsc consultations (9.3% malignant, 8.8% premalignant, and 81.9% benign skin lesions). In half of the TDsc consultations, GPs adjusted their initial referral decision after TD advice and TD diagnosis. Initially, GPs did not have the intention to refer 67 (56.8%) of 118 patients with a malignant TD diagnosis and 26 (16.0%) of 162 patients with a premalignant TD diagnosis but then decided to refer these patients after the TDsc consultation. Furthermore, GPs adjusted their decision from referral to nonreferral for 2534 (74.9%) benign skin lesions (including 676 seborrheic keratosis and 131 vascular lesions).
conclusionsGPs adjusted their referral decision in 52% (n=3306) of the TDsc consultations after the TD assessment. The availability of TDsc is thus of added value and assists GPs in their (non)referral for patients with skin lesions to dermatology care. TDsc resulted in referrals of patients with (pre)malignant skin lesions that GPs would not have referred directly to the dermatologist. TDsc also led to a reduction of unnecessary referrals of patients with low complex benign skin lesions (eg, seborrheic keratosis and vascular lesions).
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.