Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37632944›Full record

ArticleJMIR dermatology2023

Consensus Guidelines for Teledermatology: Scoping Review.

Mollie R Cummins, Triton Ong, Julia Ivanova, Janelle F Barrera, Hattie Wilczewski, Hiral Soni, Brandon M Welch, Brian E Bunnell

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Photography in dermatology.Frontiers in medicine · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Mollie R CumminsCollege of Nursing, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7078-8479
Triton OngDoxy.me, Inc, Rochester, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2512-2026
Julia IvanovaDoxy.me, Inc, Rochester, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5852-200X
Janelle F BarreraDoxy.me, Inc, Rochester, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1010-6365
Hattie WilczewskiDoxy.me, Inc, Rochester, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3034-0087
Hiral SoniDoxy.me, Inc, Rochester, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2054-3737
Brandon M WelchDoxy.me, Inc, Rochester, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2214-9282
Brian E BunnellDoxy.me, Inc, Rochester, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4964-0688

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConsensus guidelines and recommendations play an important role in fostering quality, safety, and best practices, as they represent an expert interpretation of the biomedical literature and its application to practice. However, it is unclear whether the recent collective experience of implementing telemedicine and the concurrent growth in the evidence base for teledermatology have resulted in more robust guidance.

objectiveThe objective of this review was to describe the extent and nature of currently available guidance, defined as consensus guidelines and recommendations available for telemedicine in dermatology, with guidance defined as consensus or evidence-based guidelines, protocols, or recommendations.

methodsWe conducted a single-reviewer scoping review of the literature to assess the extent and nature of available guidance, consensus guidelines, or recommendations related to teledermatology. We limited the review to published material in English since 2013, reflecting approximately the past 10 years. We conducted the review in November and December of the year 2022.

resultsWe identified 839 potentially eligible publications, with 9 additional records identified through organizational websites. A total of 15 publications met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The guidelines focused on varied topics and populations about dermatology and skin diseases. However, the most frequent focus was general dermatology (8/15, 53%). Approximately half of the telemedicine guidance described in the publications was specific to dermatology practice in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The publications were largely published in or after the year 2020 (13/15, 87%). Geographical origin spanned several different nations, including Australia, the United States, European countries, and India.

conclusionsWe found an increase in COVID-19-specific teledermatology guidance during 2020, in addition to general teledermatology guidance during the period of the study. Primary sources of general teledermatology guidance reported in the biomedical literature are the University of Queensland's Centre for Online Health and Australasian College of Dermatologists E-Health Committee, and the American Telemedicine Association. There is strong evidence of international engagement and interest. Despite the recent increase in research reports related to telemedicine, there is a relative lack of new guidance based on COVID-19 lessons and innovations. There is a need to review recent evidence and update existing recommendations. Additionally, there is a need for guidance that addresses emerging technologies.

Indexed as

consensus guidelinesCOVID-19dermatologyguidelinesrecommendationsteledermatologytelehealthtelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID37632944
PMCPMC10335147

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.