ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparison of visual diagnostic accuracy of dermatologists practicing in Germany in patients with light skin and skin of color.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic accuracy in dermatology across skin tones: A systematic review.JAAD international · 2026Article
- Political determinants of melanoma: Global inequities in skin cancer care.JAAD international · 2026Article
- What you see is not always what you get: the influence of epidemiology on ordering practices for herpes simplex virus and varicella zoster virus.ASM case reports · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Diagnostic Disparities in Erythema Visibility: A Call to Redefine Inflammatory Assessment in Diverse Skin Tones.Cureus · 2025Review
- Head and Neck Clinical Signs Associated With Diseases: A Scoping Review.Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric DentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Visual clinical diagnosis of dermatoses in people of color (PoC) is a considerable challenge in daily clinical practice and a potential cause of misdiagnosis in this patient cohort. The study aimed to determine the difference in visual diagnostic skills of dermatologists practicing in Germany in patients with light skin (Ls) and patients with skin of color (SoC) to identify a potential need for further education. From April to June 2023, German dermatologists were invited to complete an online survey with 24 patient photographs depicting 12 skin diseases on both Ls and SoC. The study's primary outcomes were the number of correctly rated photographs and the participants' self-assessed certainty about the suspected visual diagnosis in Ls compared to SoC. The final analysis included surveys from a total of 129 dermatologists (47.8% female, mean age: 39.5 years). Participants were significantly more likely to correctly identify skin diseases by visual diagnostics in patients with Ls than in patients with SoC (72.1% vs. 52.8%, p ≤ 0.001, OR 2.28). Additionally, they expressed higher confidence in their diagnoses for Ls than for SoC (73.9 vs. 61.7, p ≤ 0.001). Therefore, further specialized training seems necessary to improve clinical care of dermatologic patients with SoC.
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.