ArticleCureus2025
Clinical Photography in Dermatology: A Cross-Sectional Analysis From the Patient's Perspective in a Tertiary Care Center in Tamil Nadu, India.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAccurate diagnosis and therapy of skin illnesses depend significantly on visual inspection in dermatology, the medical specialty concerned with the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of diseases of the skin, hair, nails, and mucous membranes. The study aims to identify the perception of patients toward clinical photography. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study uses a prevalidated, semistructured physical questionnaire with 23 questions, translated into the local language, to gather data from dermatology outpatient department patients. It focuses on patient demographics, experiences with medical photography, acceptability, and areas for improvement. Conducted at a tertiary care institute over six months, it employs a cross-sectional design with convenience sampling. The questionnaire addresses demographics, preferences, consent, and storage practices. Clinical photography, critical in dermatology, aids in diagnosis, treatment, education, and documentation through detailed visual records of skin conditions.
resultsThe age distribution indicating that the largest group, 97/300 (32.3%), was over 60 years old, followed by those aged 18-30 years (54/300, 18%), 31-40 years (54/300, 18%), 51-60 years (52/300, 17.3%), and 41-50 years (43/300, 14.3%). The gender distribution was approximately equal, with women representing 151/300 (50.3%) and men 149/300 (49.7%) of the study population. Our study revealed that 157/300 (52.3%) of participants had prior experience with clinical photography, predominantly using smartphones, 106/157 (67.5%). Only 143/300 (47.7%) reported being asked for consent, with verbal consent being the most common, 84/143 (58.7%). Preferences favored department-owned equipment for photography and secure storage solutions, reflecting concerns about privacy. Participants expressed discomfort with publishing images in journals (30%) but showed greater acceptance for academic uses like sharing with other physicians 69/300 (23%). The need for improved awareness, detailed consent forms, and standardized practices was emphasized by the majority of participants.
conclusionThe findings highlight the need for standardized consent protocols, transparent communication regarding the purpose and utilization of clinical photographs, and secure storage practices to maintain patient trust and confidentiality.
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.