ReviewInternational journal of dermatology2026
Smartphone Applications in Dermatology With Special Focus on AI: A European-Continent-Based Review.
Review in International journal of 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Smartphone applications for dermatology are widely available across Europe, yet evidence on their characteristics, validation, and regulatory compliance remains limited. This review, conducted by the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Artificial Intelligence (AI) Task Force, systematically searched app stores in 44 European countries, identifying 1746 apps in 2024, of which 420 met inclusion criteria. Specifically for AI-based skin cancer screening apps, the search was updated in June 2026. Apps were categorized by function, with metadata extracted on cost, target audience, AI presence, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) compliance, and CE (Conformité Européenne) marking. Most apps (61%) were available on both Google Play and Apple App Store; 94% were free, and 60% targeted laypersons. Twelve percent reported AI functionality in 2024, 41% of these focused on skin cancer diagnosis. Only 2% reported CE marking and 10% GDPR compliance. Scientific validation was limited. Twenty percent of apps linked to peer-reviewed publications, 24 apps had clinical trial evaluations, 5 underwent randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and 6 had real-world post-deployment studies. The 2026 search identified 38 AI-based skin cancer screening apps. Adherence to EADV recommendations was poor. Key principles including explainability, inclusivity, and data sharing were met by ≤ 37% of apps. Most dermatology apps target laypersons for teledermatology, education, and self-diagnosis. Major gaps exist in regulatory compliance, clinical evidence, and transparency, raising patient safety concerns. These shortcomings raise concerns about reliability and safety, underscoring the need for stronger quality assurance, real-world validation, and inclusion of diverse skin types, in line with EADV AI Task Force recommendations.
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.