ReviewEuropean journal of rheumatology2024
Evaluation of Rheumatologists' Teledermatology Practices and Perspectives.
Review in European journal of rheumatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: In their regular practice, rheumatologists often come across patients with skin and nail abnormalities, so they need dermatology consultations. A new option available today is the use of telemedicine for dermatology consultations. The aim of this study is to assess how frequently rheumatologists use this method, known as teledermatology (TD), and to investigate their perspectives. Methods: This study is a survey of rheumatologists in Türkiye. The survey, generated with Google Docs, was e-mailed to rheumatologists who are members of the Turkish Rheumatology Association and asked them to complete it. Results: A total of 122 rheumatologists completed the survey, with 85 women (70%) and 37 men (30%). The rheumatologists claimed that they encounter a mean of 6.60 (SD: 6.90) patients with skin/ nail lesions each week in their clinical practice and consult them for face-to-face (FTF) dermatology examinations for a mean of 12.3 (SD: 15.56) patients every month. Of the rheumatologists who took part in the trial, 38.5% said they experienced the TD approach. Most of them (n: 30, 62.5%) use TD “occasionally.” A significant proportion of rheumatologists stated that they used TD to consult with dermatologists in their personal networks (54.2%), dermatologists at the hospital where they work (47.2%), or dermatologists with advanced academic training in their field (45.8%). Most rheumatologists (60.8%) reported that, following TD, they only refer their patients to FTF examinations if the dermatologist requests it (e.g., for a biopsy). Some of the rheumatologists (37.5%) stated that TD would be effective in all skin lesions, but most rheumatologists (52.1%) stated TD would be more beneficial for special skin/nail lesions like infectious skin lesions or inflammatory dermatoses. Conclusion: This study showed that a considerable number of rheumatologists use TD. Most rheumatologists schedule TD consults with dermatologists to gain speed for diagnosis and due to a lack of appointment availability from dermatologists. In rheumatology practice, clinicians have noted that they found TD effective for a wide range of skin/nail 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.