ArticleTelemedicine reports
Clinical Utility of Store-and-Forward Inpatient Teledermatology for Stevens-Johnson Syndrome/Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis Care in the Burn Unit.
Article in Telemedicine reports. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) are severe dermatologic emergencies that require rapid diagnosis and specialized care, but access to inpatient dermatology consults is often limited. While store-and-forward inpatient teledermatology (SAFIT) has been used for triaging suspected cases, its role in ongoing disease management remains unclear. Objective: To characterize the clinical characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of patients with SJS/TEN managed by SAFIT, and to compare these measures according to whether the SAFIT consult occurred before or after burn unit admission. Methods: Retrospective case series of 15 consecutive patients with teledermatologist-confirmed SJS/TEN managed by SAFIT at a tertiary-care burn center. Clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and patient outcomes were evaluated and compared based on the timing of teledermatology involvement relative to burn unit transfer. Time-to-biopsy after SAFIT consult was measured. Results: The cohort was 60.0% male with a mean age of 45.4 years. Mean SCORTEN was 1.6 ± 0.3, and mean body surface area involvement was 18.8 ± 5.9%. Biopsies were obtained in 93.3% of cases, with a mean time-to-biopsy of 2.5 ± 0.7 h after SAFIT consult. SAFIT initiated transfers to a burn center in 40.0% of cases, while 60.0% received their SAFIT consult after burn unit admission. There were no significant differences between groups in demographics, disease severity, treatment patterns, or clinical outcomes, including mortality, complications, and length of hospitalization. Mortality rates were consistent with expected ranges for SJS/TEN. Conclusion: When combined with burn unit care, SAFIT facilitates timely diagnosis and management of SJS/TEN, with comparable outcomes to prior literature regardless of consult timing. These findings suggest a role for SAFIT in standardizing and expanding access to dermatologic care. Future multicenter studies are warranted.
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.