ReviewThe Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology
AI-Assisted Dermatology in Provider Shortage Areas: A Systematic Review of Access and Wait Time Outcomes.
Review in The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAccess to dermatologic care remains a persistent challenge in the United States, particularly in rural and underserved areas. Delays in dermatologic evaluation and treatment are compounded by provider shortages, long wait times, and geographic barriers. Emerging tools such as artificial intelligence (AI), AI-assisted triage, and teledermatology platforms might offer scalable solutions to improve access and reduce delays. This article evaluates whether AI-assisted technology, compared to traditional in-person dermatology care, shortens wait times to less than 30 days for patients living in provider shortage areas.
methodsA systematic review was conducted between March and June 2025 following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed and academic library databases were queried using the following Boolean queries: "Artificial intelligence triage dermatology" and "dermatology AND access AND teledermatology AND care AND wait times." Studies were screened for relevance, and 41 met the inclusion criteria. A narrative synthesis was used due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures. Each study was appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools.
resultsIncluded studies demonstrated that AI-assisted technologies, particularly when integrated into teledermatology systems, significantly reduced dermatology wait times, often to fewer than 30 days. Store-and-forward platforms enabled expedited triage, while AI-supported decision tools improved diagnostic accuracy (85-97% sensitivity) and reduced unnecessary referrals. Task shifting to nonspecialist providers with AI support was found to be safe and effective. Despite promising outcomes, concerns related to image quality, algorithmic bias, and uneven implementation remain.
conclusionAI-assisted dermatologic tools show strong potential to improve access to care and reduce wait times in provider shortage areas. These technologies could support timely diagnosis, streamline referrals, and enable safe task shifting to primary care teams. Importantly, findings highlight the role of nurse practitioners (NPs), particularly those with limited dermatology training, in leveraging AI as both an educational and clinical decision support tool. By providing differential diagnoses, confidence scores, and visual explanations, AI can strengthen NP diagnostic confidence, reduce unnecessary referrals, and expand access to timely dermatologic care in underserved settings. Future research should focus on implementation in resource-limited settings, nurse-led AI triage models, and long-term health outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42482973PMC13387647What 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.