Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42458765›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of dermatology2026

Smartphone Applications in Dermatology With Special Focus on AI: A European-Continent-Based Review.

Tobias Sangers, Ahmad Naweed Shifai, Davide Giovanni Jacob Pasqualini, Catarina Barata, Ralph Braun, Titus Josef Brinker, Alessandra Cartocci, Ben Esdaile, Simone Goldinger, Pascale Guitera and 14 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors.

Tobias SangersDepartment of Dermatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0948-5801
Ahmad Naweed ShifaiDepartment of Dermatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7878-7373
Davide Giovanni Jacob PasqualiniDepartment of Dermatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7166-6534
Catarina BarataInstitute for Systems and Robotics, LARSyS, Instituto Superior Técnico, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2852-7723
Ralph BraunDerma Utoquai and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1253-8206
Titus Josef BrinkerDepartment of Digital Prevention, Diagnostics and Therapy Guidance, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3620-5919
Alessandra CartocciDermatology Unit, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neuroscience, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1818-6275
Ben EsdaileDepartment of Dermatology, Whittington Hospital, London, UK.
Simone GoldingerThe University of Queensland, Frazer Institute, Translational Research Institute, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7995-7301
Pascale GuiteraDepartment of Dermatology, Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9519-110X
Holger HaenssleDepartment of Dermatology, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7255-3104
Harald KittlerDepartment of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0051-8016
Jilliana MonnierDermatology and Skin Cancer Department, La Timone Hospital - Automated Melanoma Screening Center of Marseille, La Conception Hospita, AP-HMl, Marseille, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8747-5011
Cristián Navarrete-DechentDepartment of Dermatology, Escuela de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4040-3640
Sebastian PodlipnikDepartment of Dermatology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4150-0522
Laura Serra-GarcíaDepartment of Dermatology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1231-4651
Wilhelm StolzDepartment of Dermatology, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4515-9395
Kenneth ThomsenDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2337-7746
Philipp TschandlDepartment of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0391-7810
Linda TognettiDermatology Unit, Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neuroscience, University of Siena, Siena, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6691-4310
Elsemieke PlasmeijerDepartment of Dermatology, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8846-1930
Remco van DoornDepartment of Dermatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7019-6673
Josep MalvehyDepartment of Dermatology, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6998-914X
EADV AI Task Force

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceDermatologyEarly Detection of CancerMobile ApplicationsSkin NeoplasmsSmartphoneEuropeHumansapplicationsartificial intelligencedermatologyEuropeskin cancersmartphone

Identifiers

PMID42458765
PMCPMC13646473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.