SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Diagnostic accuracy of teledermatology for skin diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Case Image: Cutaneous Larva Migrans Diagnosed via Teledermatology.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Advances in the Field of Cutaneous Malignancies: Background and Clinical Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
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
Background: Skin diseases affect nearly one-third of the global population, yet limited access to dermatological care remains an unmet challenge. Teledermatology offers a promising solution, however, concerns about technological and workforce demands have limited its broader adoption. Furthermore, its diagnostic reliability across communication platforms and types, and different skin conditions remains unclear. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of teledermatology compared to in-person consultations. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL on November 19, 2023, for observational and experimental studies, without date or language restrictions. Primary outcomes included diagnostic concordance, Cohen's kappa, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values; secondary outcomes were diagnostic time, teledermatology provider and patient satisfaction and interrater agreement. A random intercept logistic regression model was used to pool outcomes. Subgroup analyses were conducted by disease category, communication platform (store-and-forward, real-time, hybrid), type (indirect, direct), dermoscopy use, photography device, and training. Results: Out of 30,412 records, 155 studies were included, with 139 analyzed quantitatively. Diagnostic concordance was 76% in all skin conditions (95%-CI: 73-79%), 73% in skin cancers (95%-CI: 67-79%) and 76% in pigmented lesions (95%-CI: 67-83%). Use of dermoscopy significantly improved diagnostic concordance from 67% (95%-CI: 58-74%) to 80% (95%-CI, 73-85%) in skin cancers. No significant differences were found by communication type, platform, or photography device. The mean diagnostic time was 1.05 min per case (95%-CI, 0.98-1.12). Patient satisfaction was high (82%, 95%-CI: 76-87%). Conclusion: Teledermatology demonstrates high diagnostic accuracy, supporting its use as a reliable alternative to in-person care for diagnosing general skin conditions and screening for skin cancer. Given its broad applicability, teledermatology stands out as a potential tool to improve access to dermatological care. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023484476, identifier CRD42023484476.
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.