ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Evaluation of a clinical decision support system for dermatology in a remote area: insights from Martinique.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dermatology faces workforce shortages in Martinique, a French Overseas Department, where general practitioners are often the first point of care. The lack of dermatology CDSS tools adapted to tropical and Francophone contexts, especially across diverse phototypes, underscores the need for innovative digital solutions. Objective: The Research Objective (RO) of this study was to evaluate a newly developed dermatology CDSS ("Dermagic") in Martinique, focusing on its reliability, usefulness, and effectiveness across diverse phototypes. To guide this evaluation, we formulated three Research Questions (RQ): What evidence supports acceptance and relevance among physicians? Which barriers and underused features may guide future improvements? How adaptable is the tool to other Francophone or tropical regions? Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted from February 7 to March 7, 2024, using a 21-item questionnaire aligned with HONcode and Netscoring criteria. The survey was sent to 117 physicians; 64 responses were analyzed. Reliability, usefulness, and satisfaction were assessed, including the System Usability Scale (SUS). Subgroup analyses were performed using exact Mid-P tests to explore variability of use across specialties. Results: Respondents (response rate 55%) highlighted the tool's quick accessibility (98.4%), improved prescription facilitation (100%), ergonomic design (90.6%), and adaptability to local dermatology needs, including diverse phototypes (95.3%). Regular use was reported by 62% of physicians, with 20% using the tool daily and 42% weekly. Subgroup analysis revealed higher use of the Medical Coding module among dermatologists compared to other non-generalist specialists ( Conclusion: This CDSS is a reliable, user-friendly tool that supports dermatological practice in Martinique, particularly addressing the management of diverse phototypes and the needs of local doctors and patients. Limitations include the modest sample size and self-reported nature of responses. Future directions include cross-regional evaluations, integration of AI for diagnostic support, and independent validation studies to strengthen its scalability and impact.
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.