Teledermatology: an evidence map of systematic reviews.
Dermatology
Evidence map
Systematic review
Teledermatology
Telemedicine
Journal
Systematic reviews
ISSN: 2046-4053
Titre abrégé: Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101580575
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Oct 2024
12 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
07
04
2024
accepted:
02
09
2024
medline:
13
10
2024
pubmed:
13
10
2024
entrez:
12
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Although the number of teledermatology studies is increasing, not all variables have been researched in equal depth, so there remains a lack of robust evidence for some teledermatology initiatives. This review describes the landscape of teledermatology research and identifies knowledge gaps and research needs. This evidence map can be used to inform clinicians about the current knowledge about teledermatology and guide researchers for future studies. Our evidence map was conducted according to the Campbell Collaboration checklist for evidence and gap maps. Eight databases were searched (CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, and OpenGray), and only included systematic reviews of teledermatology involving humans published in English; while excluding non-systematic reviews (i.e., abstracts, conference proceedings, editorials, commentaries, or letters). From 909 records, 14 systematic reviews published between 2004 and 2022 were included. Our analysis focused on the systematic reviews' characteristics, dermatological conditions studied, rate of overlap and quality assessment of primary studies reviewed, and main findings reported. Teledermatology was reportedly comparable with clinic dermatology and generally accepted by patients as a mode of care delivery for dermatological conditions. However, there are concerns about privacy, communication, completeness of information transmitted, familiarity with the technology, and technical problems. Healthcare professionals were generally satisfied with teledermatology but found telemedicine consultations longer than face-to-face consultations, and less confident in asynchronous teledermatology than conventional consultations. Teledermatology was reportedly more cost-effective than clinic dermatology; especially considering the distance traveled by patients, referral volume to teledermatology, and clinic dermatology costs. Although patients and providers are satisfied with teledermatology, face-to-face dermatology has higher diagnostic and management accuracy. Teledermatology was also used for training medical professionals. Regarding the validity and reliability of teledermatology outcome measures, no significant discussions were found. COVID-19 spotlighted telemedicine in clinical care, and we must ensure telemedicine continually improves with robust research. Further research is necessary for establishing a standardized outcome set, enhancing accuracy, concordance, cost-effectiveness, and safety, comparing teledermatology with non-dermatologist care, examining its effectiveness in non-Western low and middle-income countries, and incorporating patient involvement for improved study design. https://www.researchregistry.com/ (Unique Identifying Number: reviewregistry878).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Although the number of teledermatology studies is increasing, not all variables have been researched in equal depth, so there remains a lack of robust evidence for some teledermatology initiatives. This review describes the landscape of teledermatology research and identifies knowledge gaps and research needs. This evidence map can be used to inform clinicians about the current knowledge about teledermatology and guide researchers for future studies.
METHODS
METHODS
Our evidence map was conducted according to the Campbell Collaboration checklist for evidence and gap maps. Eight databases were searched (CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, and OpenGray), and only included systematic reviews of teledermatology involving humans published in English; while excluding non-systematic reviews (i.e., abstracts, conference proceedings, editorials, commentaries, or letters). From 909 records, 14 systematic reviews published between 2004 and 2022 were included. Our analysis focused on the systematic reviews' characteristics, dermatological conditions studied, rate of overlap and quality assessment of primary studies reviewed, and main findings reported.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Teledermatology was reportedly comparable with clinic dermatology and generally accepted by patients as a mode of care delivery for dermatological conditions. However, there are concerns about privacy, communication, completeness of information transmitted, familiarity with the technology, and technical problems. Healthcare professionals were generally satisfied with teledermatology but found telemedicine consultations longer than face-to-face consultations, and less confident in asynchronous teledermatology than conventional consultations. Teledermatology was reportedly more cost-effective than clinic dermatology; especially considering the distance traveled by patients, referral volume to teledermatology, and clinic dermatology costs. Although patients and providers are satisfied with teledermatology, face-to-face dermatology has higher diagnostic and management accuracy. Teledermatology was also used for training medical professionals. Regarding the validity and reliability of teledermatology outcome measures, no significant discussions were found.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
COVID-19 spotlighted telemedicine in clinical care, and we must ensure telemedicine continually improves with robust research. Further research is necessary for establishing a standardized outcome set, enhancing accuracy, concordance, cost-effectiveness, and safety, comparing teledermatology with non-dermatologist care, examining its effectiveness in non-Western low and middle-income countries, and incorporating patient involvement for improved study design.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
https://www.researchregistry.com/ (Unique Identifying Number: reviewregistry878).
Identifiants
pubmed: 39396040
doi: 10.1186/s13643-024-02655-5
pii: 10.1186/s13643-024-02655-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
258Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Pak H, Lee IA, Whited JD. Teledermatology. In: Rheuban KS, Krupinski EA, editors. Understanding Telehealth. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education; 2018. p. 113–24.
Beer J, Hadeler E, Calume A, Gitlow H, Nouri K. Teledermatology: current indications and considerations for future use. Arch Dermatol Res. 2021;313:11–5.
doi: 10.1007/s00403-020-02145-3
pubmed: 33074356
Bianchi MG, Santos A, Cordioli E. Benefits of teledermatology for geriatric patients: population-based cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(4):e16700.
doi: 10.2196/16700
Gehris RP, Herman EI. Pediatric teledermatology: a review. Curr Dermatol Rep. 2020;9:114–22.
doi: 10.1007/s13671-020-00294-2
Schafrank LA, Falkner RC, Lam TK, Meyerle JH. Teledermatology in military settings. Curr Dermatol Rep. 2021;10:33–9.
doi: 10.1007/s13671-021-00330-9
Armstrong AW, Kwong MW, Ledo L, Nesbitt TS, Shewry SL. Practice models and challenges in teledermatology: a study of collective experiences from teledermatologists. PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e28687.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028687
pubmed: 22194887
pmcid: 3237480
Finnane A, Siller G, Mujcic R, Soyer HP. The growth of a skin emergency teledermatology service from 2008 to 2014. Australas J Dermatol. 2016;57(1):14–8.
doi: 10.1111/ajd.12411
pubmed: 26559493
Bashshur RL, Shannon GW, Tejasvi T, Kvedar JC, Gates M. The empirical foundations of teledermatology: a review of the research evidence. Telemed E Health. 2015;21(12):953–79.
doi: 10.1089/tmj.2015.0146
Snoswell C, Finnane A, Janda M, Soyer HP, Whitty JA. Cost-effectiveness of store-and-forward teledermatology: a systematic review. JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152(6):702–8.
doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.0525
pubmed: 27074289
Whited JD. Economic analysis of telemedicine and the teledermatology paradigm. Telemed E Health. 2010;16(2):223–8.
doi: 10.1089/tmj.2009.0100
White H, Albers B, Gaarder M, Kornør H, Littell J, Marshall Z, et al. Guidance for producing a Campbell evidence and gap map. Campbell Syst Rev. 2020;16(4):e1125.
doi: 10.1002/cl2.1125
pubmed: 37016607
pmcid: 8356343
Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Jordan Z. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):1–9.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4
Peters MD, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, McInerney P, Godfrey CM, Khalil H. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26.
doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167
pubmed: 33038124
Pieper D, Antoine S-L, Mathes T, Neugebauer EA, Eikermann M. Systematic review finds overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other overview. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(4):368–75.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.007
pubmed: 24581293
Bracchiglione J, Meza N, Bangdiwala SI, Niño de Guzmán E, Urrútia G, Bonfill X, Madrid E. Graphical representation of overlap for overviews: GROOVE tool. Res Synth Methods. 2022;13(3):381–8.
Demiris G, Speedie SM, Hicks LL. Assessment of patients’ acceptance of and satisfaction with teledermatology. J Med Syst. 2004;28(6):575–9.
doi: 10.1023/B:JOMS.0000044959.71456.df
pubmed: 15615285
Eminović N, De Keizer N, Bindels P, Hasman A. Maturity of teledermatology evaluation research: a systematic literature review. Br J Dermatol. 2007;156(3):412–9.
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2006.07627.x
pubmed: 17300227
van der Heijden JP, Spuls PI, Voorbraak FP, de Keizer NF, Witkamp L, Bos JD. Tertiary teledermatology: a systematic review. Telemed E Health. 2010;16(1):56–62.
doi: 10.1089/tmj.2009.0020
Warshaw EM, Hillman YJ, Greer NL, Hagel EM, MacDonald R, Rutks IR, et al. Teledermatology for diagnosis and management of skin conditions: a systematic review. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;64(4):759-72. e21.
doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2010.08.026
pubmed: 21036419
Wallace D, Hussain A, Khan N, Wilson Y. A systematic review of the evidence for telemedicine in burn care: with a UK perspective. Burns. 2012;38(4):465–80.
doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2011.09.024
pubmed: 22078804
Clark AK, Bosanac S, Ho B, Sivamani RK. Systematic review of mobile phone-based teledermatology. Arch Dermatol Res. 2018;310(9):675–89.
doi: 10.1007/s00403-018-1862-4
pubmed: 30250964
Chuchu N, Dinnes J, Takwoingi Y, Matin RN, Bayliss SE, Davenport C, et al. Teledermatology for diagnosing skin cancer in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;12:CD013193.
pubmed: 30521686
Trettel A, Eissing L, Augustin M. Telemedicine in dermatology: findings and experiences worldwide–a systematic literature review. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018;32(2):215–24.
doi: 10.1111/jdv.14341
pubmed: 28516492
Fuertes-Guiro F, Girabent-Farrés M. Opportunity cost of the dermatologist’s consulting time in the economic evaluation of teledermatology. J Telemed Telecare. 2017;23(7):657–64.
doi: 10.1177/1357633X16660876
pubmed: 27450572
Mounessa JS, Chapman S, Braunberger T, Qin R, Lipoff JB, Dellavalle RP, et al. A systematic review of satisfaction with teledermatology. J Telemed Telecare. 2018;24(4):263–70.
doi: 10.1177/1357633X17696587
pubmed: 28350281
Elsner P. Teledermatology in the times of COVID-19–a systematic review. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2020;18(8):841–5.
pubmed: 33448667
pmcid: 7461179
Loh CH, Tam SYC, Oh CC. Teledermatology in the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. JAAD Int. 2021;5:54–64.
doi: 10.1016/j.jdin.2021.07.007
pubmed: 34368789
pmcid: 8326016
Miller J, Jones E. Shaping the future of teledermatology: a literature review of patient and provider satisfaction with synchronous teledermatology during the COVID-19 pandemic. Clin Exp Dermatol. 2022;47(11):1903–9.
doi: 10.1111/ced.15320
pubmed: 35775880
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group* P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9.
doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
pubmed: 19622511
Şenel E, Demir E. A global productivity and bibliometric analysis of telemedicine and teledermatology publication trends during 1980–2013. Dermatol Sin. 2015;33(1):16–20.
doi: 10.1016/j.dsi.2014.10.003
Prinsen CA, Vohra S, Rose MR, Boers M, Tugwell P, Clarke M, et al. How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set”–a practical guideline. Trials. 2016;17(1):1–10.
doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1555-2