Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 169

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of teleconsultations and face-to-face consultations: preliminary results of a United Kingdom multicentre teledermatology study

Gilmour, Campbell, Loane, Esmail, Griffiths, Roland, Parry, Corbett, Eedy, Gore, Mathews, Steel, Wootton·1998·British Journal of Dermatology

Abstract

The objective of this multicentre study was to undertake a systematic comparison of face-to-face consultations and teleconsultations performed using low-cost videoconferencing equipment. One hundred and twenty-six patients were enrolled by their general practitioners across three sites. Each patient underwent a teleconsultation with a distant dermatologist followed by a traditional face-to-face consultation with a dermatologist. The main outcome measures were diagnostic concordance rates, management plans and patient and doctor satisfaction. One hundred and fifty-five diagnoses were identified by the face-to-face consultations from the sample of 126 patients. Identical diagnoses were recorded from both types of consultation in 59% of cases. Teledermatology consultations missed a secondary diagnosis in 6% of cases and were unable to make a useful diagnosis in 11% of cases. Wrong diagnoses were made by the teledermatologist in 4% of cases. Dermatologists were able to make a definitive diagnosis by face-to-face consultations in significantly more cases than by teleconsultations (P = 0.001). Where both types of consultation resulted in a single diagnosis there was a high level of agreement (kappa = 0.96, lower 95% confidence limit 0.91-1.00). Overall follow-up rates from both types of consultation were almost identical. Fifty per cent of patients seen could have been managed using a single videoconferenced teleconsultation without any requirement for further specialist intervention. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with the teleconsultations. General practitioners reported that 75% of the teleconsultations were of educational benefit. This study illustrates the potential of telemedicine to diagnose and manage dermatology cases referred from primary care. Once the problem of image quality has been addressed, further studies will be required to investigate the cost-effectiveness of a teledermatology service and the potential consequences for the provision of dermatological services in the U.K.

Overview

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 · 10.1046/j.1365-2133.1998.02318.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. 1 R. Wootton (ed.).Proceedings of TeleMed96, Medicine on the SuperHighway. International Conference on Telemedicine and Telecare, November 13-14, 1996. London: Royal Society of Medicine, 1996 .
  2. 10.1001/jama.273.6.483 · DOI
  3. Preston J, 1992, Hosp Comm Psych, 43, 25
  4. McClaren P, 1995, Br Med J, 310, 1390, 10.1136/bmj.310.6991.1390 · DOI
  5. Crump WJ, 1995, Arch Fam Med, 4, 796, 10.1001/archfami.4.9.796 · DOI
  6. Yellowlees P, 1993, Med J Aust, 159, 437, 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1993.tb137958.x · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1993.tb137958.x
  7. Perednia DA, 1997, Arch Dermatol, 151, 151, 10.1001/archderm.1997.03890380021003 · DOI
  8. House AM, 1981, Can Med J, 124, 667
  9. Muller C, 1977, Med Care, 15, 251, 10.1097/00005650-197703000-00006 · DOI
  10. Watson DS, 1989, Med J Aust, 151, 62, 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1989.tb101162.x · DOI
  11. Perednia DA, 1995, Bull Med Lib Assoc, 83, 42
  12. Halvorsen P, 1996, Br Med J, 312, 1333, 10.1136/bmj.312.7042.1333 · DOI
  13. 10.1258/1357633961929952 · DOI
  14. 10.1046/j.1365-2133.1996.984743.x · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2133.1996.984743.x
  15. 10.1046/j.1365-2133.1996.d01-935.x · DOI
  16. Dunn EV, 1997, Health Services Res, 1, 19
  17. Crichton C, 1995, J Telemed Telecare, 1, 185, 10.1177/1357633X9500100310 · DOI
  18. Sneiderman CA, 1991, J Biocommun, 18, 22
  19. Phillips CM, 1997, J Am Acad Dermatol, 37, 398, 10.1016/S0190-9622(97)70139-7 · DOI
  20. 10.1001/archderm.133.2.161 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Wootton R, 1996, Br Med J, 313, 1375, 10.1136/bmj.313.7069.1375 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Harrison R, 1996, Br Med J, 313, 1377, 10.1136/bmj.313.7069.1377 · DOI
  23. 24 CC Lyon, and PV Harrison . A portable digital imaging system in dermatology: diagnostic and educational applications. In:Proceedings of TeleMed96, Medicine on the SuperHighway. International Conference on Telemedicine and Telecare, November 13-14, 1996(Wootton R, ed.). London: Royal Society of Medicine, 1996 ; 135, 8 .
  24. 10.1258/1357633971930913 · DOI
  25. Brahams D., 1997, J Telemed Telecare, 1, 196, 10.1177/1357633X9500100402 · DOI

Cited by

See all 169

Metadata

Authors
Gilmour, Campbell, Loane, Esmail, Griffiths, Roland, Parry, Corbett, Eedy, Gore, Mathews, Steel, & Wootton
Venue
British Journal of Dermatology
Published
1998-07
Volume
139
Issue
1
Pages
81-87
ISSN
  • 0007-0963 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2133
OpenAlex
W1988118668
Cited by
169
References
2
FWCI
14.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm, 6271 d)

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: Comparison of teleconsultations and face-to-face consultations: preliminary results of a United Kingdom multicentre teledermatology study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2133.1998.02318.x
The paper
Gilmour, Campbell, Loane, Esmail, Griffiths, Roland, Parry, Corbett, Eedy, Gore, Mathews, Steel, & Wootton. (1998). Comparison of teleconsultations and face-to-face consultations: preliminary results of a United Kingdom multicentre teledermatology study. British Journal of Dermatology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2133.1998.02318.x

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.