Cited by 72Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementNonmelanoma Skin Cancer StudiesCancer and Skin Lesions

Outcomes of Referral to Dermatology for Suspicious Lesions: Implications for Teledermatology

Viola, Kate V., Tolpinrud, Whitney L., Gross, Cary P., Kirsner, Robert S., Imaeda, Suguru, Federman, Daniel G.·2011·Archives of Dermatology

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of suspicious lesions referred by nondermatologists that are found to be malignant and the number of incidental skin cancers identified at the time of dermatology referral. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System. PATIENTS: Four hundred patients referred by nondermatologists for skin lesions suspected of being malignant between January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data collected included the type of referring provider, the final diagnosis by the dermatologist, and the number and type of incidental lesions. RESULTS: Only 22.0% of the index lesions (ie, the lesions that prompted the referral) were found to be cancerous. In aggregate, 149 cancerous lesions were noted in 98 patients. However, only 88 (59.1%) were identified in the index lesion; 111 incidental lesions were biopsied by the consulting dermatologist, with 61 (55.0%) additional skin cancers identified. Twelve of the 61 incidental cancers (19.7%) were found in patients whose index lesion was clinically benign and was not biopsied. CONCLUSIONS: Nondermatologists may benefit from focused educational initiatives on skin cancer detection, particularly the significance of the total body skin examination and the expectations for and limitations of teledermatology. A substantial proportion of malignant lesions was incidentally identified by the consulting dermatologist in addition to the primary lesion of concern. The use of teledermatology to assess a specific lesion of concern may be associated with underdiagnosis of clinically significant lesions that are not appreciated by the referring physician. Therefore, teledermatology must not be used as a substitute for a total body skin examination.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archdermatol.2011.108

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Viola, K. V., Tolpinrud, W. L., Gross, C. P., Kirsner, R. S., Imaeda, S., & Federman, D. G.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
Venue
Archives of Dermatology
Published
2011-05-16
Volume
147
Issue
5
Pages
556
ISSN
0003-987X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2094470872
Cited by
72
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 6
FWCI
3.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Dermatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Cancer and Skin Lesions
Keywords
skin cancer, suspicious skin lesions, dermatology referral, teledermatology, total body skin examination, skin cancer detection, underdiagnosis, veterans
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Biopsy, Carcinoma, Basal Cell, Basal Cell Carcinoma, Carcinoma, Squamous Cell, Dermatology, Female, Humans, Male, Melanoma, Middle Aged, Referral and Consultation, Skin Neoplasms, Telemedicine

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