Assessing diagnostic skill in dermatology: A comparison between general practitioners and dermatologists
Abstract
SUMMARY: This retrospective study was conducted to assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy between referring general practitioners and dermatologists with regard to skin conditions. Six hundred and fifty‐six consecutive general practitioner referrals to a private dermatology practice and a dermatology outpatient department were assessed. The concordance rate in diagnoses from a wide spectrum of dermatological diseases was compared between general practitioners and dermatologists. Referring general practitioners agreed with dermatologists’ clinical diagnosis and histology (when available) in 42% of cases. The concordance between general practitioners and dermatologists in the setting of non‐biopsied cases is 45%. One hundred and fifty‐one of 656 (23%) conditions had histological confirmation. Overall, general practitioners agreed with the histological diagnosis in 24% of cases and dermatologists agreed with the histological diagnosis in 77% of cases.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The diagnostic accuracy of nonspecialists is reportedly only 24% to 70%.
“The diagnostic accuracy of nonspecialists is reportedly only 24% to 70%,4,8,9,10”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Jain, A., Way, D., Gupta, V., Gao, Y., de Oliveira Marinho, G., Hartford, J., Sayres, R., Kanada, K., Eng, C., Nagpal, K., et al. (2021) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.7249 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Teledermatology: From historical perspective to emerging techniques of the modern era
Coates, S. J., Kvedar, J., & Granstein, R. D. (2015) · Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2014.07.061 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Deep learning-aided decision support for diagnosis of skin disease across skin tones
Groh, M., Badri, O., Daneshjou, R., Koochek, A., Harris, C., Soenksen, L. R., Doraiswamy, P. M., & Picard, R. (2024) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-023-02728-3 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
Teledermatology: idea, benefits and risks of modern age - a systematic review based on melanoma
Pala, P., Bergler-Czop, B. S., & Gwiżdż, J. (2020) · Advances in Dermatology and Allergology · doi:10.5114/ada.2020.94834 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Use of the mobile phone multimedia messaging service for teledermatology
Börve, A., Holst, A., Gente-Lidholm, A., Molina-Martinez, R., & Paoli, J. (2012) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1258/jtt.2012.120206 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Byrom, L., Lucas, L., Sheedy, V., Madison, K., McIver, L., Castrisos, G., Alfonzo, C., Chiu, F., & Muir, J. (2016) · Australian Journal of Rural Health · doi:10.1111/ajr.12248 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Zhong, F., He, K., Ji, M., Chen, J., Gao, T., Li, S., Zhang, J., & Li, C. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-59436-2 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Escalé-Besa, A., Vidal-Alaball, J., Miró Catalina, Q., Gracia, V. H. G., Marin-Gomez, F. X., & Fuster-Casanovas, A. (2024) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare12121192 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
- Authors
- Tran, H., Chen, K., Lim, A. C., Jabbour, J., & Shumack, S.
- Affiliations
- St George Hospital (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Shumack, Stephen
- Venue
- Australasian Journal of Dermatology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-09-30
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 230-234
- ISSN
- 0004-8380 (ISSN-L)
- 1440-0960
- OpenAlex
- W1971953839
- Cited by
- 92
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 1.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Australasian Journal of Dermatology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
- Keywords
- diagnostic accuracy, general practitioners, dermatologists, skin diseases, diagnostic agreement, histopathological diagnosis, general practitioner referral, outpatient dermatology
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Competence, Dermatology, Family Practice, Humans, New South Wales, Referral and Consultation, Retrospective Studies, Skin Diseases, Health Care Surveys
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
