ArticleIndian dermatology online journal2026
Diagnostic Concordance and Interobserver Variability Between Tele-Dermatology (Store-and-Forward) and In-Person Evaluation for Inpatient Dermatology Consultations.
Article in Indian dermatology online journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLimited availability of dermatologists, the high burden of skin ailments in hospitalized patients, and lack of access to dermatology training within primary care highlight the need for tele-dermatology. Data about the diagnostic reliability of tele-dermatology and interobserver variability in inpatient settings are limited. AIM AND
objectivesTo assess diagnostic concordance and interobserver variability between tele-dermatology (store-and-forward) and in-person evaluation for inpatient dermatology consultations. PATIENTS AND
methodsOne hundred hospitalized patients, sent by referring physicians for dermatology consultations, were evaluated in-person by certified dermatologists (CD) and trainee dermatologists (TrD). Another set of CD and TrD evaluated the store-and-forward case using tele-evaluation. Diagnosis and investigations recommended were recorded. Final diagnosis was made for each case by CD (in-person) after detailed investigations. The final diagnosis was considered the gold standard and used for comparisons. Percentage concordance between the evaluators and kappa values was calculated.
resultsCD (in-person) and CD (tele) were found to have maximum partial diagnostic concordance (88%), concordance in biopsy decisions (89%), and dermoscopy recommendations (85.7%) among all groups. Diagnostic categories by CD (tele) that matched with the final diagnosis were infections, pediatric, papulosquamous, and hair and nail disorders. TrDs (tele) were able to diagnose infections, eczematous disorders and papulosquamous disorders correctly. Discordant cases by CD (tele) were drug-induced and contact dermatitis. TrD (tele) had also diagnosed drug-induced and contact dermatitis incorrectly, in addition to lymphatic and vascular disorders. Referring physicians had the lowest diagnostic concordance with CD and TrD. LIMITATIONS: It was a single-center study, and dermatological emergency cases were excluded.
conclusionTeleconsultation by CD and TrD can be an alternative to evaluation by non-dermatologists for providing dermatological services to inpatients. It may further supplement in-person evaluation, especially for complex or high-risk cases.
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.