ArticleDermatology practical & conceptual2025
Dermoscopic Image Digital Post-Processing Perception and Use Among Members of the International Dermoscopy Society: Results of a Web-based Survey.
Article in Dermatology practical & conceptual, 2025. 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
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSpeculatively, digital image post-processing (DIPP) enhances diagnostic accuracy in dermoscopy.
objectiveWe aimed to investigate the advantages and limitations of DIPP, as well as its perceived reliability and safety.
methodsIn this study we investigated the perception and use of DIPP among members of the International Dermoscopy Society through a web-based survey with 17 questions focusing on: (i) demographics (sex, age, nationality, specialty, professional experience in dermoscopy), (ii) application of digital dermoscopy, (iii) imaging devices, (iv) DIPP software usage, (v) area of DIPP application (e.g., neoplastic dermatoses or inflammoscopy), preference over manual or automatized DIPP, (vi) personally adjusted parameters, (vii) perceived reliability and safety of DIPP, and (viii) an open comment section.
resultsA total of 360 respondents (64 countries) completed the survey. While 91.7% of respondents reported capturing dermoscopic images during examination, only 22.4% of them declared using DIPP. We have demonstrated that DIPP was used more commonly with smartphones rather than video dermatoscopes or digital cameras and for dermoscopy of neoplastic dermatoses rather than inflammoscopy. Respondents tended to adjust image parameters manually. The perceptions of its usefulness and safety were good, even though slight variability across geographic regions was observed.
conclusionGiven that no regulations for DIPP exist, healthcare professionals involved with dermoscopic image acquisition and archiving may require special training to responsibly implement DIPP in their practices.
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.