A comparison of the concordance of digital images, live examinations, and skin biopsies for the diagnosis of hospitalized dermatology consultation patients

Skinmed

Volumn 2, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 14-19

  Scheinfeld, Noah ^a   Kurz, Jeremy ^b   Teplitz, Ellen ^c  

^a ST LUKE S ROOSEVELT HOSPITAL CENTER   (United States)

^b JACOBI MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c MONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOPSY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PATHOLOGY; PATIENT REFERRAL; PHOTOGRAPHY; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; SKIN; SKIN DISEASE;

BIOPSY; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; HUMANS; PHOTOGRAPHY; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; SKIN; SKIN DISEASES;

EID: 1542650648     PISSN: 15409740     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-9740.2003.01866.x     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. 1 Falanga V, Schachner LA, Rae V, et al. Dermatologic consultations in the hospital setting. Arch Dermatol. 1994 ; 130: 1022–1025.
2. 2 Whited JD, Horner RD, Hall RP, et al. The influence of history on interobserver agreement for diagnosing actinic keratoses and malignant skin lesions. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1995 ; 33: 603–607.
3. 3 Lowitt MH, Kessler II, Kauffman CL, et al. Teledermatology and in‐person examinations: a comparison of patient and physician perceptions and diagnostic agreement. Arch Dermatol. 1998 ; 134: 471–476.
4. 4 Whited JD, Hall R P, Simel DL, et al. Reliability and accuracy of dermatologists' clinic based and digital image consultations. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1999 ; 41: 693–702.
5. 5 Loane MA, Bloomer SE, Corbett RZ, et al. Patient satisfaction with realtime teledermatology in Northern Ireland. J Telemed Telecare. 1998 ; 4: 36–40.
6. 6 Perednia DA. Telemedicine in dermatology: 21st century update. Prog Dermatol. 2000 ; 34 (1): 1–10.
7. 7 Schneiderman CA, Schosser RH, Pearson TG. A comparison of JPEG and FIF compression of medical images for dermatology. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 1994 ; 18: 339–342.
8. 8 Kvedar JC, Edwards RA, Menn ER, et al. The substitution of digital images for dermatologic physical examination. Arch Dermatol. 1997 ; 33: 161–167.
9. 9 Krupinski EA, LeSueur B, Ellsworth L, et al. Assessment of diagnostic accuracy using a digital camera for teledermatology. From the American Telemedicine Association. Available at: http:www.atmeda.orgconfer1999krupinskitelederm.html. Accessed May 25, 2000.
10. 10 Lamminen H, Lamminen J, Ruohonen K, et al. A cost study of teleconsultation for primary‐care ophthalmology and dermatology. J Telemed Telecare. 2001 ; 7: 167–173.
11. 11 Wootton R, Bloomer SE, Corbett R, et al. Multicentre randomised control trial comparing real time teledermatology with conventional outpatient dermatological care: societal cost‐benefit analysis. BMJ. 2000 ; 320: 1252–1256.
12. 12 Perednia DA, Gaines JA, Butruille TW. Comparison of the clinical informativeness of photographs and digital imaging media with multiple‐choice operating characteristic analysis. Arch Dermatol. 1995 ; 131: 292–297.
13. 13 Ramonelli M, Falanga V. Use of durometer to measure the degree of skin induration in lipodermatosclerosis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1995 ; 32: 188–191.
14. 14 Stoecker W V, Chiang C‐S, Moss RH. Texture in skin images: comparison of three methods to determine smoothness. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 1992 ; 16 (3): 179–190.
15. 15 Acharya R, Anand D, Bhat S, et al. Compact storage of medical images with patient information. IEEE. Trans Inf Technol Biomed. 2001 ; 5: 320–323.
16. 16 Feldman SR, Coates ML, Fleischer AB Jr, et al. Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of dermatologists and nondermatologists. Arch Dermatol. 2001 ; 137: 1645–1646.