ArticleJMIR dermatology2023
Teledermatology for Enhancing Skin Cancer Diagnosis and Management: Retrospective Chart Review.
Article in JMIR dermatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy of teledermatology for skin diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Teledermoscopy-Assisted Referral for Cutaneous Melanoma: Diagnostic Timeliness, Histopathologic Severity, and Stage at Excision in a Comparative Cohort.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Capturing Optimal Mobile 2D Facial Images in Remote Aesthetics Medicine Clinical Trials: Technical Considerations for Facial Severity Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Teledermatology and Teledermoscopy for Melanoma Care Pathways: Timeliness, Diagnostic Performance, and Stage at Diagnosis: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSkin cancer rates are at all-time highs, but the shortage of dermatologists compels patients to seek medical advice from general practitioners. A new referral pathway called the Suspected Skin Cancer (SSC) service was established to provide general practitioners in Waikato, New Zealand, with rapid diagnosis and treatment advice for lesions suspicious for skin cancer.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the quantity, quality, and characteristics of referrals to the SSC teledermatology service during its first 6 months.
methodsA retrospective chart review of all referrals sent to the SSC teledermatology service during the first 6 months of its operation was conducted. Time to advice, diagnoses, diagnostic discordance, adherence to advice, and time to treatment were recorded. Diagnostic discordance between general practitioners, dermatologists, and pathologists was calculated.
resultsThe SSC service received 340 referrals for 402 lesions. Dermatologists diagnosed 256 (63.7%) of these lesions as benign; 56 (13.9%) were histologically confirmed as malignant, including 19 (4.7%) melanomas. The overall discordance between referrer and dermatologist on specific and broad (ie, benign or malignant) diagnoses for 402 lesions was 47% and 26% (κ=0.58, SD 0.07), respectively; 44% and 26% (κ=0.61, SD 0.15) between referrer and pathologist; and 18% and 12% (κ=0.82, SD 0.12) between dermatologist and pathologist. The mean time between referral submission and receiving advice was 1.02 days. The average time to action (eg, excision) was 64.8 days.
conclusionsAn electronic referral system can be an effective form of teledermatology for providing prompt diagnosis and management advice for benign and malignant skin 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.