ArticleJMIR dermatology2026
Remote Monitoring of Cryosurgery Response Using a Smartphone App: Prospective Study.
Article in JMIR dermatology, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Cryosurgery is an effective treatment for benign lesions, although current unstandardized approaches may result in inadequate responses and unwanted adverse reactions. Monitoring treatment characteristics, lesion responses, and patient-reported outcomes using patient-derived mobile imaging may facilitate longitudinal treatment assessment. Objective: This study aimed to determine the reliability of metrics for assessing the response to cryosurgery in patients with actinic and seborrheic keratoses using remote photographic monitoring. Methods: Patients who were recommended cryosurgery by their physician for treating seborrheic and/or actinic keratoses (22 patients with 31 lesions) were enrolled. After treatment, participants took "overview" and "close up" photos of their lesion(s) and rated appearance, pain, and degree bothered on a custom smartphone app at eight posttreatment time points (days 0, 3, 7, 10, 14, 30, 60, and 90). After study completion, independent raters scored the images for local skin response (eg, erythema, scaling, crust, swelling, vesiculation, and erosion), cosmetic outcome (eg, hyperpigmentation, hypopigmentation, scarring, and atrophy), and lesion resolution. Results: The local skin response peaked 3 days after cryosurgery, with 26% (7/27) of patients reporting pain. There was substantial agreement between raters for lesion resolution (κ=0.71, 95% CI 0.62-0.79), erythema (κ=0.66, 95% CI 0.57-0.74), and the local skin response index (κ=0.69, 95% CI 0.61-0.77) as measured using the quadratic-weighted Cohen κ. Overall, 77% (151/195) of submitted photos were good quality, and most image-derived metrics showed higher agreement in good-quality photos (8/14, 57% metrics had moderate-substantial κ) compared to poor-quality photos (4/14, 29% metrics had moderate-substantial κ). The peak local skin response had a moderate positive association with the lesion response at 90 days (Spearman ρ=0.556, P=.01). Conclusions: This study demonstrates the utility of patient self-imaging for longitudinal assessment of the response to cryosurgery.
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.