Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 187Telemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationDigital Imaging in MedicineCutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Substitution of Digital Images for Dermatologic Physical Examination

Kvedar, Joseph C.·1997·Archives of Dermatology
DOI 10.1001/archderm.1997.03890380031005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of clinicians viewing a patient's history and static digital image set compared with clinicians who conducted office-based physical examinations of the same patients. Design Observational study. Setting and patients One hundred sixteen adult patients presenting with dermatologic symptoms in a university-based practice who consented to have their skin conditions documented with a still digital camera according to a standardized protocol. Main outcome measures Concordance between office-based dermatologists' diagnoses and 2 remote clinicians' diagnoses using still digital images (resolution, 92 dots per inch) and identical medical history data to render diagnoses. Results When photographic quality was high and office-based clinician certainty was high, remote clinicians were in agreement more than 75% of the time. Office-based and remote clinicians were in agreement 61% to 64% of the time for all cases. No specific disease category appeared to be more or less amenable to diagnosis based on still digital imagery. The diagnostic certainty of the office-based clinician (reported from 0-10) had the most impact on agreement. When cases with office-based clinician certainty of no more than 7 were compared with cases with certainty of at least 9, agreement increased 54% for remote clinician 1 and 111% for remote clinician 2. As an isolated variable, photographic quality had a modest impact on agreement. Conclusions Still digital images…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archderm.1997.03890380031005

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 44 references

Cited by

See all 187

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kvedar, J. C.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Kvedar, Joseph C.
ORCID
Kvedar, Joseph C.
Venue
Archives of Dermatology
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
1997-02-01
Volume
133
Issue
2
Pages
161
ISSN
0003-987X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/archderm.1997.03890380031005
OpenAlex
W2069239546
Cited by
187
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
22.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Dermatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Digital Imaging in Medicine
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
Keywords
store-and-forward telemedicine, remote diagnosis, diagnostic accuracy, diagnostic certainty, photographic quality, dermatologic symptoms, primary care dermatology
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Humans, Middle Aged, Photography, Physical Examination, Skin Diseases, Reproducibility of Results, Remote Consultation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Substitution of Digital Images for Dermatologic Physical Examination. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archderm.1997.03890380031005
The paper
Kvedar, J. C. (1997). The Substitution of Digital Images for Dermatologic Physical Examination. Archives of Dermatology. https://doi.org/10.1001/archderm.1997.03890380031005

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.