Cited by 257Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationAI in cancer detection

Teledermatology for the Diagnosis and Management of Skin Cancer: A Systematic Review

Open access
Finnane, Anna, Dallest, Kathy, Janda, Monika, Soyer, H. Peter·2017·JAMA Dermatology

Abstract

Importance: As technology becomes more commonplace in dermatological practice, it is essential to continuously review the accuracy of teledermatology devices and services compared with in-person care. The last systematic review was conducted over 5 years ago. Objective: To synthesize and assess the quality of the evidence to address 3 research questions: (1) How accurate is teledermatology for skin cancer diagnosis compared with usual care (face-to-face [FTF] diagnosis)? (2) Does teledermatology save clinician and/or patient time, compared with usual care? (3) What are the enablers and barriers to adoption of teledermatology in clinical practice for the diagnosis of skin cancer? Evidence Review: The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database. Six databases (Cochrane, PubMed, Medline, Science Direct, Embase, and Web of Science) were searched for studies investigating the diagnostic accuracy and concordance, management accuracy and concordance, measures of time (waiting times, delay to diagnosis), and enablers and barriers to implementation. Potentially eligible articles were screened by 2 reviewers. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias and applicability of individual studies assessing diagnostic accuracy. Findings: Twenty-one studies were reviewed. The diagnostic accuracy (defined as agreement with histopathology for excised lesions or clinical diagnosis for nonexcised lesions) of FTF dermatology consultation remains higher (67%-85% agreement with reference standard, Cohen κ, 0.90) when compared with teledermatology (51%-85% agreement with reference standard, κ, 0.41-0.63), for the diagnosis of skin cancer. However, some studies do report high accuracy of teledermatology diagnoses. Most studies of diagnostic accuracy and concordance had significant methodological limitations. Studies of health service outcomes found teledermatology reduced waiting times and could result in earlier assessment and treatment. Patients reported high satisfaction and were willing to pay out of pocket for access to such services. Conclusions and Relevance: Robust implementation studies of teledermatology are needed, paying careful attention to reducing risk of bias when assessing diagnostic accuracy. Teledermatology services consistently reduced waiting times to assessment and diagnosis, and patient satisfaction was high.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.4361

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • There is significant variability in diagnostic accuracy across pre-pandemic research on teledermatology.

    “There is valid concern over the reliability of teledermatology given the significant variability in diagnostic accuracy predicted across pre-pandemic research.6”
  • The date cut-off of 2010 means the dataset has little overlap with existing reviews and more heavily features new relevant technologies like smartphone apps for image acquisition.

    “Our date cut-off of 2010 means our dataset has little overlap with existing reviews, and more heavily features new relevant technologies like smartphone apps for image acquisition.6 57”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [40]40. OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence.; 2011. http://www.cebm.net/ocebm-levels-of-evidence/.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Finnane, A., Dallest, K., Janda, M., & Soyer, H. P.
Affiliations
  • Translational Research Institute (AU)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
Venue
JAMA Dermatology
Published
2017-03-01
Volume
153
Issue
3
Pages
319
ISSN
2168-6068 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2560712575
Cited by
257
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 7
FWCI
1.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Dermatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Health and Medical Research Council (1045247)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in cancer detection
Keywords
teledermatology, skin cancer diagnosis, diagnostic accuracy, telemedicine, waiting time, patient satisfaction, barriers to adoption, clinical implementation, delayed diagnosis
MeSH terms
Dermatology, Diagnostic Errors, Humans, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Skin Neoplasms, Time Factors, Patient Satisfaction, 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