ArticleJAMA dermatology2025
Standard Dermatoscope Images vs an Autonomous Total Body Photography and Dermoscopic Imaging Device.
Article in JAMA dermatology, 2025. 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.
- Advancements in Diagnosis of Neoplastic and Inflammatory Skin Diseases: Old and Emerging Approaches.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Recent advancements in autonomous medical devices for skin imaging offer the potential to improve the efficiency and quality of total body photography (TBP) and dermatoscopic documentation, which are essential in treating patients with skin cancer, especially those with high-risk melanoma with atypical mole syndrome. Objective: To compare the image quality and time efficiency of an autonomous TBP and dermoscopic device for TBP and dermoscopic imaging with traditional manual digital dermoscopic techniques. Design, Setting, and Participants: A prospective cohort study was conducted from March 1, 2023, to October 30, 2023, comparing image quality and time efficiency between an autonomous TBP and dermoscopic device and manual dermoscopic documentation across 316 patients with atypical mole syndrome at 2 dermatology clinics in Spain. All analyses took place in June 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the acceptability of the images, assessed by 2 independent dermatologists. Secondary outcomes included diagnostic agreement between the 2 methods and time efficiency for image acquisition. Results: Overall, mean (SD) age of patients was 47.13 (3.31) years. The number of male patients was 105 (33%), while the number of female patients was 211 (66%). The autonomous TBP and dermoscopic device produced dermoscopic images with a mean (SD) quality score of 9.84 (0.72), compared with 9.44 (0.85) for manual digital dermoscopy, with no significant differences by body site or lesion type. Diagnostic classification agreement between the 2 methods was 91.60%, with most discrepancies related to small benign lesions. The mean (SD) imaging time for the autonomous device was 570 (169) seconds, compared with 606 (286) seconds for the manual method. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that the autonomous TBP and dermoscopic device produced images of comparable quality to standard dermoscopic techniques while operating with greater time efficiency. These findings suggest that the device may contribute to clinical workflow optimization in dermatology by supporting TBP and dermoscopic imaging.
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.