0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Study |

Store-and-Forward Teledermatology in Skin Cancer Triage:  Experience and Evaluation of 2009 Teleconsultations FREE

David Moreno-Ramirez, PhD; Lara Ferrandiz, MD; Adoracion Nieto-Garcia, PhD; Rafael Carrasco, MD; Pedro Moreno-Alvarez, PhD; Rafael Galdeano, MD; Esther Bidegain, MD; Juan J. Rios-Martin, PhD; Francisco M. Camacho, PhD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Pigmented Lesion, Skin Cancer, and Teledermatology Clinic (Drs Moreno-Ramirez and Ferrandiz), Department of Dermatology (Drs Moreno-Ramirez, Ferrandiz, and Camacho), Surgical Area (Dr Carrasco), and Department of Pathology (Dr Rios-Martin), University Hospital Virgen Macarena; Department of Social and Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Seville (Dr Nieto-Garcia); and Primary Care Center “San José” (Dr Moreno-Alvarez), Primary Care Center “Sevilla” (Dr Galdeano), and Primary Care Center “Sevilla Norte” (Dr Bidegain); Seville, Spain.


Arch Dermatol. 2007;143(4):479-483. doi:10.1001/archderm.143.4.479.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Objective  To evaluate a store-and-forward teledermatology system aimed at the routine triage of patients with skin cancer.

Design  A multicenter, longitudinal, 4-phase, descriptive and evaluation study of a referred sample of patients attended through teleconsultation between March 2004 and July 2005 (n = 2009). Clinical and dermoscopical examination and histopathological study were considered the gold standard.

Setting  A skin cancer unit of a public university hospital and 12 primary care centers in southern Spain.

Patients  The study population comprised patients with circumscribed lesions fulfilling at least 1 of the following criteria: changes in ABCD criteria (asymmetry, border irregularity, color variegation, and diameter >6 mm), recent history, multiple melanocytic lesions, symptoms, and/or patient's application for surgical treatment and concern about moles.

Interventions  Diagnosis, diagnostic category (malignant lesions, high-risk lesions, benign lesions, special lesions, and other lesions), diagnostic confidence level on a 3-point scale, and management decision (referral vs nonreferral) were listed after the evaluation of each teleconsultation. A face-to-face evaluation and biopsy of selected patients were performed.

Main Outcome Measures  The filtering percentage, as the percentage of patients not referred to the face-to-face clinic, as well as waiting intervals and pick-up or skin cancer detection rates were evaluated as effectiveness indicators. Reliability measures (κ agreement), accuracy, and diagnostic performance indicators (validity) were also evaluated.

Results  The filtering percentage was 51.20% (95% confidence interval [CI], 49.00%-53.40%). The waiting interval to attend the clinic was 12.31 days (95% CI, 8.22-16.40 days) through teledermatology and 88.62 days (95% CI, 38.42-138.82 days; P<.001) for the letter referral system. Pick-up rates were 2.02% (95% CI, 1.10%-2.94%) for malignant melanoma and 27.94% (95% CI, 24.98%-30.90%) or 1:3.71 for patients with any malignant or premalignant lesion. Intraobserver agreement was κ = 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89-0.93) for the management decision and κ = 0.95 (95% CI, 0.94-0.96) for the diagnosis. Interobserver concordance was κ = 0.83 (95% CI, 0.78-0.88) for the management decision and κ = 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79-0.91) for the diagnosis. Accuracy was κ = 0.81 (95% CI, 0.78-0.84). Sensitivity was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00); specificity, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.56-0.69); pretest likelihood, 0.42 (95% CI, 0.37-0.47); positive posttest likelihood, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69); and negative posttest likelihood, 0.01 (95% CI, 0.00-0.05).

Conclusion  Store-and-forward teledermatology has demonstrated in this series to be an effective, accurate, reliable, and valid approach for the routine management of patient referrals in skin cancer and pigmented lesion clinics.

Figures in this Article

For the last 10 years, numerous studies have presented teledermatology (TD) as a helpful complementary tool in different clinical settings. From general real-time TD consultation to more specific store-and-forward triage systems, all have been experienced with variable benefits improving patient's standards of care and, in terms of effectiveness, reliability, accuracy, and patients' satisfaction.13

A specific application of TD that has been repeatedly tested is the use of store-and-forward systems aimed at the management of patient referrals in skin cancer clinics. The diagnostic advantage of skin growths against generalized dermatoses in TD has been argued in favor of the implementation of such dermatologist-directed triage systems.1,4,5 However, as it has been recently reported, official recommendations promulgated for the early diagnosis of cancer (ie, the British “2-week rule”)6,7 are not working well, which is probably related to the lack of an appropriate referral system.8 In regard to this point, TD would allow the dermatologist to make decisions based on clinical information and Internet-transmitted digital pictures.

A store-and-forward teledermatology (SFTD) triage system aimed at the selection of patients with skin growths suggestive of cancer was implemented at our skin cancer clinic in 2003; the facility currently covers a total population of 300 000 inhabitants of a southern Spanish province living 5 to 100 km away, and it has turned into an essential complementary tool for our daily practice at the clinic.2

The present study describes the results of the implemented SFTD triage system in terms of clinical effectiveness, validity, and accuracy.

A multicenter, longitudinal, descriptive, and evaluation study of an SFTD system aimed at the triage of patients with skin cancer was conducted at the Pigmented Lesion and Skin Cancer Clinic of the University Hospital Virgen Macarena, Seville, Spain, and 12 primary care centers (PCCs) between March 2004 and July 2005. Clinical effectiveness, reliability, accuracy, and validity of SFTD as a triage and diagnostic tool were evaluated following the design and phases depicted in Figure 1.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Design of the study and patients' enrollment. Asterisk indicates referred sample; dagger, random sample.

Graphic Jump Location

During the first phase of the study, the first dermatologist (D.M.-R.) carried out the evaluation of all the teleconsultations received during the study period (n = 2009). The clinical diagnosis, diagnostic category, diagnostic confidence level, the management decision, and the quality of the pictures and clinical information submitted were all recorded after this first evaluation. The same items were recorded in a second evaluation of these teleconsultations by the same dermatologist to assess the intraobserver concordance. In this phase, teleconsultations received within the last 3 months of the study (March-July 2005, inclusive) were excluded to impose a 3- to 12-month period between the 2 evaluations to lower the possibility of intraobserver bias (n = 1589). Teleconsultations were also randomly shuffled prior to the second evaluation by the same dermatologist.

During the third phase of the study, 2 samples of patients were evaluated at the face-to-face clinic (Figure 1). A random sample of patients (n = 403) attended through teleconsultations was referred to the face-to-face clinic regardless of the benign or malignant diagnosis reached. The second sample of patients consisted of all the patients routinely referred and seen at the face-to-face clinic (n = 882), from which the accuracy was calculated as the concordance between the diagnoses given after the first evaluation of teleconsultations and the gold standard. In a fourth phase, the second dermatologist (L.F.) evaluated a random sample of teleconsultations (n = 340) to complete the reliability study through the assessment of the diagnostic and management interobserver concordance.

Patients included in the study had to present at the participant PCC with circumscribed lesions fulfilling at least 1 of the following criteria: changes in ABCD criteria (asymmetry, border irregularity, color variegation, and diameter >6 mm) or growing lesion, recent history (<3 years), multiple lesions (>20 melanocytic nevi counted by the general practitioner),9 symptoms (eg, pain, itching, and bleeding), and patient request for surgical treatment and concern about moles.

According to established guidelines, after obtaining the consent form, 2 digital pictures, a panoramic view and a macrophotograph, are taken of these patients (Nikon Coolpix 4300 [1600 × 1200 pixels]; Nikon Corp, Tokyo, Japan).10 Pictures are inserted in a Microsoft Word (Microsoft Inc, Redmond, Wash) document, where clinical information is also gathered. This document is then sent via the Intranet ATM (Asynchronous Transfer Mode), ISDR-B (Integrated Services Digital Network type B), and Frame Relay/ADSL (Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line) networks to the e-mail account of the clinic. After the evaluation of the teleconsultation using a 19-in (48.3-cm) thin-film transistor (TFT) monitor, a report with the possible diagnosis and management of the case is returned.

Diagnostic categories and diagnoses considered included the following:

  1. Malignant and premalignant lesions (malignant melanoma including melanoma in situ and lentigo maligna, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, keratoacanthoma, actinic keratosis and cheilitis, and other tumors)

  2. Suspicious or high-risk lesions or phenotypes (clinically atypical nevus and multiple melanocytic nevi)

  3. Benign lesions and melanocytic and nonmelanocytic clinically typical circumscribed lesions (common acquired melanocytic nevus, seborrheic keratosis, dermatofibroma, blue nevus, actinic lentigo, vascular lesions, and others)

  4. “Special” lesions and melanocytic and nonmelanocytic circumscribed lesions of uncertain potential (congenital nevus, acral nevus, spilus nevus, Sutton nevus, persistent nevus, mucosal nevus and lentigo, and others)

  5. Other lesions (lesions and conditions not placed in previous categories)

The diagnostic confidence level was rated on a 3-point scale, with 3 indicating an absolutely confident clinical diagnosis and 1, an absolutely uncertain diagnosis. Management options were limited to the “referral” vs “nonreferral” of patients to the face-to-face clinic as shown in Figure 2. The quality of the pictures and the clinical information transmitted was graded as excellent, sufficient, and insufficient for the decision-making process. All the patients presenting with benign lesions after the in vivo evaluation who were referred to the face-to-face clinic and who did not warrant further intervention or follow-up were considered under the concept of unnecessary referral.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Flowchart describing the management options after the evaluation of teleconsultations. DCL indicates diagnostic confidence level.

Graphic Jump Location

The time interval to attend the face-to-face clinic since the first visit to the general practitioner was calculated. This period was compared with the mean waiting interval of a random sample of patients attended through the conventional letter referral system and fulfilling the aforementioned inclusion criteria (n = 530). The time the dermatologist spent reporting teleconsultations was also considered. The filtering percentage was calculated as the percentage of patients not referred to the face-to-face clinic out of the total number of teleconsultations received. The pick-up or detection rates of melanoma, nonmelanoma skin cancer, and category 1 lesions were calculated as the number of these types of lesions diagnosed among the patients seen at the face-to-face clinic after the triage performed by TD. The 2 × 2 contingency table constructed for the validity study and the diagnostic performance indicators calculated are given in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Patient Allocation in the 2 × 2 Contingency Table for the Validity Study
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Diagnostic Performance Indicators Calculated for the Validity Study, Definition, and Results

A double gold standard was defined in this study. In those patients with clinically and dermoscopically benign and nonsuspicious lesions, with a diagnostic confidence level of 3 after the in vivo evaluation carried out by the 3 participant dermatologists (D.M.-R., L.F. and F.C.M.), this clinical and dermoscopical diagnosis was considered the gold standard. In cases of a diagnostic confidence level lower than 3 at the face-to-face examination, as well as in discordant cases after the in vivo evaluation by the participant dermatologists and in any type of malignant lesion or lesion suggestive of cancer, the gold standard was the histopathological study.

For statistical analysis, SPSS 12.0 software (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill) was used. The aforementioned concordances were calculated as Cohen κ values with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).11 Statistically significant differences were demonstrated by means of the χ2 test, and the t test for paired data was used to compare the diagnostic confidence level. The normal distribution of the data was analyzed by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test. All significance tests were 2-sided, with P<.05 considered statistically significant. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy guidelines were followed for the validity study.12

Over a period of 15 months, 2009 patients were attended through teleconsultation at the clinic, with a mean of 133.9 teleconsultations per month (range, 40-262; 95% CI, 106.95-160.91). Age and sex distribution of patients and the reason for teleconsultation are given in Table 3 and Table 4. Diagnostic categories and diagnoses found at the PCC, teleconsultation, and face-to-face clinic are given in Table 5.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Age and Sex Distribution of Patients Included in the Study, Patients Evaluated at the Face-to-Face Clinic, Patients With Premalignant or Malignant Lesions (Category 1), and Patients With Benign Lesions (Category 3)
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Reason for Teleconsultation
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Diagnoses Distribution at the Primary Care Center and Teleconsultation and After the Face-to-Face Evaluation*

Teleconsultation demonstrated a filtering percentage of 51.20% (95% CI, 49.00%-53.40%), with 980 patients (48.80%) being referred to the face-to-face clinic. Of these patients, 9.18% did not keep their appointments for several reasons, leading to a final sample of patients seen at the face-to-face clinic of 890 patients. Teleconsultations evaluated by the first dermatologist demonstrated a mean diagnostic confidence level of 2.59 (95% CI, 1.98-3.00) after the first evaluation and 2.62 (95% CI, 2.05-3.00) after the second evaluation (P<.001). The diagnostic confidence level for category 1 lesions was of 2.51 (95% CI, 1.93-3.00) after the first evaluation through TD. The diagnostic confidence level after the in vivo evaluation at the face-to-face clinic increased to 2.84 (95% CI, 2.45-3.00) (P<.001).

Teleconsultation reports were available to the general practitioner in a mean time interval of 61.06 hours (95% CI, 33.83-88.29 hours; range, 6-144 hours), with a 95th percentile of 96.00 hours. Patients referred to the face-to-face clinic were attended within a mean period of 12.31 days (95% CI, 8.22-16.40 days; range, 2-31 days), with a 95th percentile of 21.00 days. The mean interval for the sample of patients referred through the conventional letter referral system (n = 530) was 88.62 days (95% CI, 38.42-138.82 days; P<.001), with a 75th percentile of 120.00 days.

The dermatologist responsible for the first evaluation of teleconsultations spent a mean time of 1 hour to deal with 19.8 teleconsultations (mean of 3.03 minutes per teleconsultation; 95% CI, 1.23-4.83 minutes). The melanoma pick-up rate at the face-to-face clinic was 2.02% (95% CI, 1.10%-2.94%) or 1:49.89 patients seen at the clinic. The nonmelanoma skin cancer pick-up rate was 13.56% (95% CI, 11.30%-15.82%) or 1:7.36 patients seen at the clinic, and the premalignant and malignant lesions (category 1) pick-up rate was 27.94% (95% CI, 24.98-30.90) or 1:3.71 patients seen at the face-to-face clinic. Of the patients referred to the clinic, 71.21% presented cutaneous lesions that warranted surgical or medical therapy or periodic follow-up at the clinic. The remaining 28.79% of patients did not require any intervention and were discharged from the clinic (unnecessary referrals).

The quality of the digital pictures transmitted was excellent in up to 21.50% (n = 432) of the teleconsultations (95% CI, 19.70%-23.30%). In 73.00% (n = 1466) of cases (95% CI, 71.06%-74.94%), the transmitted pictures were appropriate, with 5.55% (95% CI, 4.55%-6.55%; n = 111) of pictures not of sufficient quality for the decision-making process. Of the teleconsultations, the clinical information transmitted was excellent in 6.60% (n = 133), appropriate in 90.80% (n = 1824), and poor in 2.60% (n = 52). The lack of information regarding the time evolution of the lesions accounted for 72.50% (n = 38) of the teleconsultations with poor clinical information.

The reliability study yielded the following results: intraobserver agreement was κ = 0.91 (95% CI, 0.89-0.93) for the management decision and κ = 0.95 (95% CI, 0.94-0.96) for the diagnoses given by the first dermatologist. Interobserver concordance was κ = 0.83 (95% CI, 0.78-0.88) when the management options were assessed and κ = 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79-0.91) for the diagnosis. The second dermatologist demonstrated a lower diagnostic confidence level (2.59 vs 2.66; P<.001) and a lower filtering percentage (50.60% vs 51.20%; P<.05).

Agreement between the teleconsultation diagnosis and the gold standard was κ = 0.81 (95% CI, 0.78-0.84). This diagnostic accuracy increased to 0.89 (95% CI, 0.84-0.94) for category 1 lesions. The agreement between the diagnosis made by the general practitioner and that of the dermatologist by teleconsultation was κ = 0.46 (95% CI, 0.43-0.49). Validity measures obtained in this study are given in Table 2.

Although the application of TD as a triage system for skin cancer is not new, long-term studies of TD working as a routine tool for the daily practice of skin cancer clinics at public hospitals are lacking. This use of TD therefore warrants a thorough evaluation in terms of clinical effectiveness, reliability, and validity.

Regarding the effectiveness of TD systems, the lack of quantifiable clinical end points that may be applied to different clinical situations (eg, mortality and quality of life) has turned intermediate clinical outcomes (eg, consultations avoided, time to intervention, and consultation time requirements) into the most descriptive indicators of the clinical effectiveness of TD systems.13

Mean waiting intervals reported in studies evaluating TD systems have ranged between 2 and 50 days for TD systems vs the 88 to 137 days demonstrated by the conventional letter referral.2,1416 In our series, patients referred to the clinic, one third of whom had malignant lesions, were attended to within the following 2 weeks (mean time, 12.31 days) since they first visited the general practitioner, in accordance with the 2-week rule promoted by health care administrations.6,7 Along with the faster communication channel that the Internet represents, the avoidance of unnecessary visits to the dermatologist may explain such shortening of waiting intervals.

In previous studies, clinic-based evaluations avoided ranged between 44% and 82% for real-time TD systems and between 18% and 31% for the store-and-forward method, with the greater amount of clinical information provided by videoconference being suggested as the main reason for this advantage in referrals avoided.1,14,1719 In our study, although it involved a store-and-forward facility, 94.45% of teleconsultations retained enough information to make a decision, leading to a 51.20% of visits avoided, which is closer to the rates achieved by real-time facilities compared with previously published SFTD experiences.14 The triage objective of the evaluated facility, along with the standard referral forms developed to transmit clinical information, may account for this advantage.

The malignant melanoma pick-up rate disclosed in the present study agrees with previous studies reporting rates between 1:22 and 1:64 in European pigmented lesion clinics and largely improves the detection rate reported in US clinics (1:250).20,21 However, to our knowledge, no previous studies provide information about the nonmelanoma skin cancer pick-up rate. In that respect, after the TD-based triage, 1 of 3.7 patients seen at the clinic presented with any type of premalignant or already malignant lesion that warranted intervention.

Regarding the reliability assessment, high simple agreement rates ranging from 55% to 100% have been reported for biopsy decisions in SFTD-based skin cancer triage systems.3,2225 According to κ statistics, the strength of the diagnostic agreement has also ranged from moderate to perfect in similar previous experiences.2,3

The evaluated triage system has also disclosed excellent agreement in terms of concordance κ values between face-to-face and Internet-based diagnosis (κ = 0.81), a concept that is also called accuracy in other series. Available studies have also calculated concordances ranging from 81% to 89% between face-to-face dermatologists and store-and-forward dermatologists,13,26 with other series reporting similar degrees of agreement between TD and the traditional consultation.13,27 It is worthwhile to mention a recent study that reported a 48% agreement between TD and conventional consultation.22 We suggest that the notable proportion of poor images and the lack of lesion details given in the referral teleconsultation template were probably related to the limited diagnostic accuracy of SFTD for skin lesions in these authors' findings.22

Few studies on TD have dealt with the evaluation of validity in terms of sensitivity and specificity.3,23,28 Moreover, to our knowledge, no evaluation study of TD has dealt with other indicators of diagnostic performance recommended by the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy) guidelines, which may strengthen the results obtained by the simple assessment of sensitivity and specificity.12 In these terms, the finding of a posttest likelihood higher than the pretest likelihood suggests that this tool is useful for the diagnosis of skin cancer. In addition, the low negative posttest likelihood obtained also indicates the low likelihood of a nonreferred patient’s having a skin cancer.

In conclusion, the facility evaluated in this series involves an SFTD triage system aimed at the routine case management of patients presenting with cutaneous growths suggestive of cancer at their visit to their general practitioner. After the evaluation of 2009 teleconsultations, SFTD has resulted in an effective, reliable, and valid triage tool, suitable to be integrated into the routine practice of skin cancer clinics.

Correspondence: David Moreno-Ramirez, PhD, Pigmented Lesion and Teledermatology Clinic, Dermatology Department, University Hospital Virgen Macarena, Avda Dr Fedriani s/n, 41009 Seville, Spain (dmoreno@e-derma.org).

Financial Disclosure: None reported.

Accepted for Publication: September 4, 2006.

Author Contributions: Drs Moreno-Ramirez and Ferrandiz had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: Moreno-Ramirez, Ferrandiz, Carrasco, Moreno-Alvarez, Galdeano, and Camacho. Acquisition of data: Moreno-Ramirez, Ferrandiz, Moreno-Alvarez, Galdeano, and Rios-Martin. Analysis and interpretation of data: Moreno-Ramirez, Ferrandiz, Galdeano, and Camacho. Drafting of the manuscript: Moreno-Ramirez and Ferrandiz. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Moreno-Ramirez, Ferrandiz, Carrasco, Moreno-Alvarez, Galdeano, Rios-Martin, and Camacho. Statistical analysis: Moreno-Ramirez and Ferrandiz. Obtained funding: Moreno-Ramirez, Carrasco, and Camacho. Administrative, technical, and material support: Moreno-Ramirez, Carrasco, Moreno-Alvarez, Galdeano, and Camacho. Study supervision: Moreno-Ramirez, Rios-Martin, and Camacho.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by grant FIS PI 04/1194 from the Instituto Carlos III.

Taylor  PGoldsmith  PMurray  KHarris  DBarkley  A Evaluating a telemedicine system to assist in the management of teledermatology referrals. Br J Dermatol 2001;144328- 333
PubMed Link to Article
Moreno-Ramirez  DFerrandiz  LPerez  AMCarrasco  RRios  JJCamacho  F Teledermatology as a filtering system in pigmented lesion clinics. J Telemed Telecare 2005;11298- 303
PubMed Link to Article
Shapiro  MJames  WDKessler  R  et al.  Comparison of skin biopsy triage decisions in 49 patients with pigmented lesions and skin neoplasms: store-and-forward teledermatology versus face-to-face dermatology. Arch Dermatol 2004;140525- 528
PubMed Link to Article
Osborne  EEChave  TAHutchinson  PE Comparison of diagnostic accuracy for cutaneous malignant melanoma between general dermatology, plastic surgery and pigmented lesion clinics. Br J Dermatol 2003;148252- 258
PubMed Link to Article
Provost  NKopf  AWRabinowitz  HS  et al.  Comparison of conventional photographs and telephonically transmitted compressed digitized images of melanomas and dysplastic nevi. Dermatology 1998;196299- 304
PubMed Link to Article
The Department of Health, The New NHS: Modern, Dependable.  Norwich, England Stationery Office Ltd1997;Government white paperhttp://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/doh/newnhs/wpaper1.htmAccessed November 2, 2005
Escudero  J Cáncer de Piel: Proceso Asistencial Integrado.  Seville, Spain Andalusian Health Government2002;http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/salud/library/plantillas/externa.asp?pag=/salud/contenidos/profesionales/procesos/mapa%202/canpiel2.pdfAccessed May 9, 2006
Cox  NH Evaluation of the UK 2-week referral rule for skin cancer. Br J Dermatol 2004;150291- 298
PubMed Link to Article
MacKie  RM Risk factors for the development of primary cutaneous malignant melanoma. Dermatol Clin 2002;20597- 600
PubMed Link to Article
Moreno-Ramirez  DPerez-Bernal  AMFerrandiz  PCarrasco  RSerrano  PCamacho  F Teleconsultation of pigmented lesions. Piel 2004;19472- 479
Link to Article
Landis  JRKoch  GG The measurement of observer agreement in categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33159- 174
PubMed Link to Article
Bossuyt  PMReitsma  JBBruns  DE  et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ 2003;32641- 44
PubMed Link to Article
Whited  JD Executive Summary of the Status of Teledermatology Research.  Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, VA Medical Center Durham, NC2005;http://atmeda.org/ICOT/sigtelederm.Research%20Summary.pdfAccessed February 3, 2006
Whited  JDHall  RPFoy  ME  et al.  Teledermatology's impact on time to intervention among referrals to a dermatology consult service. Telemed J E Health 2002;8313- 321
PubMed Link to Article
Whited  JDDatta  SHall  RP  et al.  An economic analysis of a store-and-forward teledermatology consult system. Telemed J E Health 2003;9351- 360
PubMed Link to Article
Krupinski  EBarker  GRodriguez  G  et al.  Telemedicine versus in-person dermatology referrals: an analysis of case complexity. Telemed J E Health 2002;8143- 147
PubMed Link to Article
Loane  MABloomer  SECorbett  R  et al.  A randomized controlled trial assessing the health economics of realtime teledermatology compared with conventional care: an urban versus rural perspective. J Telemed Telecare 2001;7108- 118
PubMed Link to Article
Granlund  HThoden  CJCarlson  CHarno  K Realtime teleconsultations versus face-to-face consultations in dermatology: immediate and six-month outcome. J Telemed Telecare 2003;9204- 209
PubMed Link to Article
Wootton  RBloomer  SECorbett  R  et al.  Multicentre randomized control trial comparing real time teledermatology with conventional outpatient dermatological care: a societal cost-benefit analysis. BMJ 2000;3201252- 1256
PubMed Link to Article
Gibbon  KL Pigmented lesion clinics—are they a waste of resources? Clin Exp Dermatol 1998;233- 8
PubMed Link to Article
Arundell  FD Screening for melanoma and skin cancer. JAMA 1986;2552443- 2444
PubMed Link to Article
Mahendran  RGoodfield  MJSheehan-Dare  RA An evaluation of the role of a store-and-forward teledermatology system in skin cancer diagnosis and management. Clin Exp Dermatol 2005;30209- 214
PubMed Link to Article
Lewis  KGilmour  EHarrison  PV  et al.  Digital teledermatology for skin tumours: a preliminary assessment using a receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. J Telemed Telecare 1999;5 ((suppl 1)) S57- S58
PubMed Link to Article
Harrison  PVKirby  BDickinson  YSchofield  R Teledermatology, high technology or not? J Telemed Telecare 1998;431- 32
PubMed Link to Article
Whited  JDMills  BJDrugge  RJGrichnik  JMSimel  DL A pilot trial of digital imaging in skin cancer. J Telemed Telecare 1998;4108- 112
PubMed Link to Article
Lowitt  MHKessler  IIKauffman  CLHooper  FJSiegel  EBurnett  JW Teledermatology and in-person examinations: a comparison of patient and physician perceptions and diagnostic agreement. Arch Dermatol 1998;134471- 476
PubMed Link to Article
Loane  MACorbett  RBloomer  SE  et al.  Diagnostic accuracy and clinical management by realtime teledermatology: results from the Northern Ireland arms of the UK Multicentre Teledermatology Trial. J Telemed Telecare 1998;495- 100
PubMed Link to Article
Phillips  CMBurke  WAAllen  MHStone  DWilson  JL Reliability of telemedicine in e valuating skin tumors. Telemed J 1998;45- 7
PubMed Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Design of the study and patients' enrollment. Asterisk indicates referred sample; dagger, random sample.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Flowchart describing the management options after the evaluation of teleconsultations. DCL indicates diagnostic confidence level.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Patient Allocation in the 2 × 2 Contingency Table for the Validity Study
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Diagnostic Performance Indicators Calculated for the Validity Study, Definition, and Results
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Age and Sex Distribution of Patients Included in the Study, Patients Evaluated at the Face-to-Face Clinic, Patients With Premalignant or Malignant Lesions (Category 1), and Patients With Benign Lesions (Category 3)
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Reason for Teleconsultation
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Diagnoses Distribution at the Primary Care Center and Teleconsultation and After the Face-to-Face Evaluation*

References

Taylor  PGoldsmith  PMurray  KHarris  DBarkley  A Evaluating a telemedicine system to assist in the management of teledermatology referrals. Br J Dermatol 2001;144328- 333
PubMed Link to Article
Moreno-Ramirez  DFerrandiz  LPerez  AMCarrasco  RRios  JJCamacho  F Teledermatology as a filtering system in pigmented lesion clinics. J Telemed Telecare 2005;11298- 303
PubMed Link to Article
Shapiro  MJames  WDKessler  R  et al.  Comparison of skin biopsy triage decisions in 49 patients with pigmented lesions and skin neoplasms: store-and-forward teledermatology versus face-to-face dermatology. Arch Dermatol 2004;140525- 528
PubMed Link to Article
Osborne  EEChave  TAHutchinson  PE Comparison of diagnostic accuracy for cutaneous malignant melanoma between general dermatology, plastic surgery and pigmented lesion clinics. Br J Dermatol 2003;148252- 258
PubMed Link to Article
Provost  NKopf  AWRabinowitz  HS  et al.  Comparison of conventional photographs and telephonically transmitted compressed digitized images of melanomas and dysplastic nevi. Dermatology 1998;196299- 304
PubMed Link to Article
The Department of Health, The New NHS: Modern, Dependable.  Norwich, England Stationery Office Ltd1997;Government white paperhttp://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/doh/newnhs/wpaper1.htmAccessed November 2, 2005
Escudero  J Cáncer de Piel: Proceso Asistencial Integrado.  Seville, Spain Andalusian Health Government2002;http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/salud/library/plantillas/externa.asp?pag=/salud/contenidos/profesionales/procesos/mapa%202/canpiel2.pdfAccessed May 9, 2006
Cox  NH Evaluation of the UK 2-week referral rule for skin cancer. Br J Dermatol 2004;150291- 298
PubMed Link to Article
MacKie  RM Risk factors for the development of primary cutaneous malignant melanoma. Dermatol Clin 2002;20597- 600
PubMed Link to Article
Moreno-Ramirez  DPerez-Bernal  AMFerrandiz  PCarrasco  RSerrano  PCamacho  F Teleconsultation of pigmented lesions. Piel 2004;19472- 479
Link to Article
Landis  JRKoch  GG The measurement of observer agreement in categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33159- 174
PubMed Link to Article
Bossuyt  PMReitsma  JBBruns  DE  et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ 2003;32641- 44
PubMed Link to Article
Whited  JD Executive Summary of the Status of Teledermatology Research.  Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care, VA Medical Center Durham, NC2005;http://atmeda.org/ICOT/sigtelederm.Research%20Summary.pdfAccessed February 3, 2006
Whited  JDHall  RPFoy  ME  et al.  Teledermatology's impact on time to intervention among referrals to a dermatology consult service. Telemed J E Health 2002;8313- 321
PubMed Link to Article
Whited  JDDatta  SHall  RP  et al.  An economic analysis of a store-and-forward teledermatology consult system. Telemed J E Health 2003;9351- 360
PubMed Link to Article
Krupinski  EBarker  GRodriguez  G  et al.  Telemedicine versus in-person dermatology referrals: an analysis of case complexity. Telemed J E Health 2002;8143- 147
PubMed Link to Article
Loane  MABloomer  SECorbett  R  et al.  A randomized controlled trial assessing the health economics of realtime teledermatology compared with conventional care: an urban versus rural perspective. J Telemed Telecare 2001;7108- 118
PubMed Link to Article
Granlund  HThoden  CJCarlson  CHarno  K Realtime teleconsultations versus face-to-face consultations in dermatology: immediate and six-month outcome. J Telemed Telecare 2003;9204- 209
PubMed Link to Article
Wootton  RBloomer  SECorbett  R  et al.  Multicentre randomized control trial comparing real time teledermatology with conventional outpatient dermatological care: a societal cost-benefit analysis. BMJ 2000;3201252- 1256
PubMed Link to Article
Gibbon  KL Pigmented lesion clinics—are they a waste of resources? Clin Exp Dermatol 1998;233- 8
PubMed Link to Article
Arundell  FD Screening for melanoma and skin cancer. JAMA 1986;2552443- 2444
PubMed Link to Article
Mahendran  RGoodfield  MJSheehan-Dare  RA An evaluation of the role of a store-and-forward teledermatology system in skin cancer diagnosis and management. Clin Exp Dermatol 2005;30209- 214
PubMed Link to Article
Lewis  KGilmour  EHarrison  PV  et al.  Digital teledermatology for skin tumours: a preliminary assessment using a receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. J Telemed Telecare 1999;5 ((suppl 1)) S57- S58
PubMed Link to Article
Harrison  PVKirby  BDickinson  YSchofield  R Teledermatology, high technology or not? J Telemed Telecare 1998;431- 32
PubMed Link to Article
Whited  JDMills  BJDrugge  RJGrichnik  JMSimel  DL A pilot trial of digital imaging in skin cancer. J Telemed Telecare 1998;4108- 112
PubMed Link to Article
Lowitt  MHKessler  IIKauffman  CLHooper  FJSiegel  EBurnett  JW Teledermatology and in-person examinations: a comparison of patient and physician perceptions and diagnostic agreement. Arch Dermatol 1998;134471- 476
PubMed Link to Article
Loane  MACorbett  RBloomer  SE  et al.  Diagnostic accuracy and clinical management by realtime teledermatology: results from the Northern Ireland arms of the UK Multicentre Teledermatology Trial. J Telemed Telecare 1998;495- 100
PubMed Link to Article
Phillips  CMBurke  WAAllen  MHStone  DWilson  JL Reliability of telemedicine in e valuating skin tumors. Telemed J 1998;45- 7
PubMed Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 50

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
JAMAevidence.com