Part II: Accuracy of Teledermatology in Skin Neoplasms
Open accessAbstract
Teledermatology has been proving to be of great help for delivering healthcare, especially now, during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. It is crucial to assess how accurate this method can be for evaluating different dermatoses. Such knowledge can contribute to the dermatologists' decision of whether to adhere to teledermatology or not. Our objective was to determine the accuracy of teledermatology in the 10 most frequent skin neoplasms in our population, comparing telediagnosis to histopathological report and in-person dermatologists' diagnosis. A retrospective cohort study was conducted in São Paulo, Brazil, where a store-and-forward teledermatology project was implemented under primary-care attention to triage surgical, more complex, or severe dermatoses. A total of 30,976 patients presenting 55,012 lesions took part in the project. Thirteen teledermatologists who participated in the project had three options to refer the patients: send them directly to biopsy, to the in-person dermatologist, or back to the general physician with the most probable diagnosis and management. In the groups referred to the in-person dermatologist and biopsy, we looked for the 10 most frequent International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems-10 (ICD-10) of skin neoplasms, which resulted in 289 histopathologic reports and 803 in-person dermatologists' diagnosis. We were able to compare the ICD-10 codes filled by teledermatologists, in-person dermatologists, and from histopathological reports. The proportion of complete, partial, and no agreement rates between the in-person dermatologist's, histopathologic report, and the teledermatologist's diagnosis was assessed. We also calculated Cohen's kappa, for complete and complete plus partial agreement. The mean complete agreement rate comparing telediagnosis to histopathological report was 54% (157/289; kappa = 0.087), being the highest for malign lesions; to in-person dermatologists was 61% (487/803; kappa = 0.213), highest for benign lesions. When accuracy of telediagnosis for either malign or benign lesions was evaluated, the agreement rate with histopathology was 70% (kappa = 0.529) and with in-person dermatologist, 81% (kappa = 0.582). This study supports that teledermatology for skin neoplasms has moderate accuracy. This result reassures that it can be a proper option for patient care, especially when the goal is to differentiate benign from malign lesions.
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 clinician-initiated images was higher for malignant diagnoses such as melanomas and nonmelanoma skin cancers than benign diagnoses.
“A recent study found that the diagnostic accuracy of clinician-initiated images was higher for malignant diagnoses such as melanomas and nonmelanoma skin cancers than benign diagnoses [19].”
From Store-and-Forward Images in Teledermatology: Narrative Literature Review (2022) · cites this paper as [19]
The Results report that, against histopathology, teledermatology accuracy was highest for melanoma (88%), basal cell carcinoma (75%), and squamous cell carcinoma (71%); the Discussion reports 94% agreement for malignant lesions versus 61% for benign lesions in that comparison. But the Discussion also reports the reverse pattern against in-person dermatologists—73% for malignant versus 82% for benign lesions—so the unqualified claim overgeneralizes the finding. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Teledermatology for diagnosis and management of skin conditions: A systematic review
Warshaw, E. M., Hillman, Y. J., Greer, N. L., Hagel, E. M., MacDonald, R., Rutks, I. R., & Wilt, T. J. (2011) · Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2010.08.026 · Cited by 310 · see citing works
Teledermatology for the Diagnosis and Management of Skin Cancer: A Systematic Review
Finnane, A., Dallest, K., Janda, M., & Soyer, H. P. (2017) · JAMA Dermatology · doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.4361 · Cited by 257 · see citing works
Kroemer, S., Frühauf, J., Campbell, T. M., Massone, C., Schwantzer, G., Soyer, H. P., & Hofmann-Wellenhof, R. (2011) · British Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2133.2011.10208.x · Cited by 202 · see citing works
Teledermatology for diagnosing skin cancer in adults.
Chuchu, N., Dinnes, J., Takwoingi, Y., Matin, R. N., Bayliss, S. E., Davenport, C., Moreau, J. F., Bassett, O., Godfrey, K., O'Sullivan, C., et al. (2018) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd013193 · Cited by 175 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Despite the increasing use of teledermatology on an international level, the evidence base to support its ability to accurately diagnose lesions and to triage lesions from primary to secondary care is lacking and further prospective and pragmatic evaluation is needed (5).”
BackgroundStore-and-Forward Teledermatology in Skin Cancer Triage
Moreno-Ramirez, D., Ferrandiz, L., Nieto-Garcia, A., Carrasco, R., Moreno-Alvarez, P., Galdeano, R., Bidegain, E., Rios-Martin, J. J., & Camacho, F. M. (2007) · Archives of Dermatology · doi:10.1001/archderm.143.4.479 · Cited by 163 · see citing works
Lim, A. C., Egerton, I. B., See, A., & Shumack, S. P. (2001) · Australasian Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1046/j.1440-0960.2001.00529.x · Cited by 93 · see citing works
O’Connor, D. M., Jew, O. S., Perman, M. J., Castelo-Soccio, L. A., Winston, F. K., & McMahon, P. J. (2017) · JAMA Dermatology · doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.4280 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Mobile teledermatology for skin cancer screening: A diagnostic accuracy study
Markun, S., Scherz, N., Rosemann, T., Tandjung, R., & Braun, R. P. (2017) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000006278 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Giavina Bianchi, M., Santos, A., & Cordioli, E. (2021) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1177/1357633x19864829 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- [1]Lee JJ English JC. Teledermatology: a review and update. Am J Clin Dermatol. (2018) 19: 253– 60. 10.1007/s40257-017-0317-6 28871562 · DOI · Paper page
- [2]Ferrándiz L Ojeda-Vila T Corrales A Martín-Gutiérrez FJ Ruíz-de-Casas A Galdeano R. Internet-based skin cancer screening using clinical images alone or in conjunction with dermoscopic images: a randomized teledermoscopy trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. (2017) 76: 676– 82. 10.1016/j.jaad.2016.10.041 28089728 · DOI · Paper page
- [4]Warshaw EM Lederle FA Grill JP Gravely AA Bangerter AK Frontier LA. Accuracy of teledermatology for pigmented neoplasms. J Am Acad Dermatol. (2009) 61: 753– 65. 10.1016/j.jaad.2009.04.032 19679375 · DOI · Paper page
- [8]Lasierra N Alesanco A Gilaberte Y Magallón R García J. Lessons learned after a three-year store and forward teledermatology experience using internet: strengths and limitations. Int J Med Inform. (2012) 81: 332– 43. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.02.008 22425394 · DOI · Paper page
- [10]Weingast J Scheibböck C Wurm EM Ranharter E Porkert S Dreiseitl S. A prospective study of mobile phones for dermatology in a clinical setting. J Telemed Telecare. (2013) 19: 213– 8. 10.1177/1357633x13490890 24163062 · DOI · Paper page
- [12]American Medical Association AMA Telemedicine Policy. (2016). Available online at: www.ama-assn.org (accessed october 10, 2020).
- [14]Landis J Koch G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical categorical data. Biometrics. (1977) 33: 159– 74. 10.2307/2529310 843571 · DOI · Paper page
- [16]Silveira CE Silva TB Fregnani JH da Costa Vieria RA Haikel RL Jr Syrjanen K. Digital photography in skin cancer screening by mobile units in remote areas of Brazil. BMC Dermatol. (2014) 14: 19. 10.1186/s12895-014-0019-1 25539949 PMC4302445 · DOI
- [17]Jolliffe VM Harris DW Whittaker SJ. Can we safely diagnose pigmented lesions from stored video images? A diagnostic comparison between clinical examination and stored video images of pigmented lesions removed for histology. Clin Exp Dermatol. (2001) 26: 84– 7. 10.1046/j.1365-2230.2001.00767.x 11260186 · DOI
- [18]Tandjung R Badertscher N Kleiner N Wensing M Rosemann T Braun RP. Feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of teledermatology in Swiss primary care: process analysis of a randomized controlled trial. J Eval Clin Pract. (2015) 21: 326– 31. 10.1111/jep.12323 25645267 · DOI
- [20]Elliott TM Whiteman DC Olsen CM Gordon LG Estimated healthcare costs of melanoma in Australia over 3 years post-diagnosis. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. (2017) 15: 805– 16. 10.1007/s40258-017-0341-y 28756584 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Diagnostic reliability in teledermatology: a systematic review and a meta-analysis
Bourkas, A. N., Barone, N., Bourkas, M. E. C., Mannarino, M., Fraser, R. D. J., Lorincz, A., Wang, S. C., & Ramirez-GarciaLuna, J. L. (2023) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068207 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Store-and-Forward Images in Teledermatology: Narrative Literature Review
Jiang, S. W., Flynn, M. S., Kwock, J. T., & Nicholas, M. W. (2022) · JMIR Dermatology · doi:10.2196/37517 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
“However, there was higher interobserver concordance between teledermatologists and in-person dermatologists when they examined benign diagnoses [19].”
BackgroundDiagnostic accuracy of teledermatology for skin diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Martyin, K., Meznerics, F. A., Bokor, L. A., Szabó, B., Hegyi, P., Kiss, N., & Bánvölgyi, A. (2026) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2026.1739592 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Giavina-Bianchi, M., Azevedo, M. F. D., Sousa, R. M., & Cordioli, E.
- Affiliations
- Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein (BR)
- Venue
- Frontiers in Medicine
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2020-11-23
- Volume
- 7
- Pages
- 598903-598903
- ISSN
- 2296-858X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7732487
- OpenAlex
- W3109953301
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4
- FWCI
- 1.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- 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, diagnostic accuracy, store-and-forward telemedicine, histopathology comparison, primary care triage, COVID-19 pandemic, São Paulo, Brazil, Brazil
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