ArticleJournal of cutaneous pathology2024
Dermatology residents' perspectives on virtual dermatopathology education.
Article in Journal of cutaneous pathology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Navigating the AI tide: challenges, opportunities, and future directions for early-career dermatologists.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDermatopathology education accounts for 30% of U.S. dermatology residency training. The COVID-19 pandemic expedited the implementation of virtual dermatopathology in place of traditional microscopy for resident education. This study examined U.S. dermatology residents' perceptions of virtual dermatopathology, as research in this area is lacking.
methodsAn anonymous, confidential, institutional review board-approved survey was electronically distributed to U.S. dermatology residents consisting of 16 questions comparing attitudes towards virtual and traditional dermatopathology education. Responses were n = 59. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS software.
resultsParticipants believe virtual imaging is superior to conventional microscopy in schedule flexibility (96.6% vs. 1.7%, p < 0.0001), lecture convenience (94.8% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.0001), personal review (96.6% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.0001), cost-effectiveness (64.4% vs. 6.8%, p < 0.0001), and board exam preparation (52.5% vs. 16.9%, p = 0.0005). Conventional microscopy was favored for image quality (50.8% vs. 25.4%, p = 0.0127) and overall utility (50.8% vs. 27.1%, p = 0.0195).
conclusionsOur study supports virtual dermatopathology utilization as a valuable tool in dermatology residency training. Also it is shown that conventional microscopy training continues to play a key role. Further studies should examine whether, if ever, virtual dermatopathology could gradually replace conventional microscopy with the advent of newer and more powerful digital and scanning technology.
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.