A Randomized Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of Online Follow-up Visits in the Management of Acne

Watson, Alice J.; Bergman, Hagit; Williams, Christy M.; Kvedar, Joseph C.

doi:10.1001/archdermatol.2010.29

Cited by 66 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] All studies were from high income countries. Six studies (seven articles) were from the United States, 11,15,18,21,[23][24][25] two from the Netherlands, 17,22 and one from each of the following countries: Austria, 16 Canada, 20 Denmark, 26 Italy, 12 Norway, 13 Singapore, 19 and United Kingdom.…”

Section: Clinical Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14 Eleven studies were randomized controlled trials [11][12][13][14][15][16]18,[20][21][22][23][24][25] (Table S3). One study used the intervention for both screening and follow-up.…”

Section: Clinical Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In most studies, the participants included were in the adult age, with the following exceptions: the mean age of participants was >65 years in two studies, 20,26 one included adolescents and adults, 16 one only children, and one with groups of children patients/parents of children and adult patients. 22 Four studies focused on psoriasis lesions, 12,14,15,17 three on atopic dermatitis, 11,13,22 two on patients with acne, 16,23 two on pressure ulcer, 20,21 and two on chronic skin lesions. 19,26 One study did not specify or presented the most frequent diagnosis, 18 and in one study there was a wide variety of diagnoses.…”

Section: Clinical Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These facts, along with the methodological quality of included studies, must be carefully examined to prevent erroneous conclusions being drawn. In some studies, there is the possibility of bias toward motivation and technology acceptance, 13,23 selection of certain groups of patients, 23,24 as well as high drop out rates, 22 which may influence the generalizability of the findings. In other cases, teledermatology intervention included an expert with a high level of expertise, that may not be representative of other dermatologists who work with teledermatology interventions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Teledermatology: current perspectives

Oliveira¹,

Wolff²,

Ribeiro³

et al. 2017

SHTT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Clinical Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14 Eleven studies were randomized controlled trials [11][12][13][14][15][16]18,[20][21][22][23][24][25] (Table S3). One study used the intervention for both screening and follow-up.…”

Section: Clinical Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Clinical Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Teledermatology: current perspectives

Oliveira¹,

Wolff²,

Ribeiro³

et al. 2017

SHTT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The direct-care model has generally been practiced using S&F technology and in research settings (Chambers et al, 2010;Parsi et al, 2010;Watson et al, 2010).…”

Section: Direct-care Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teledermatology: Outcomes and Economic Considerations

Pathipati¹,

Armstrong²

2011

Telemedicine Techniques and Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionTeledermatology is defined as the provision of dermatologic care through the use of communications technology (Goldyne & Armstrong, 2010). It offers many benefits that include increased access to dermatologic services and potential reduction in costs associated with care. Teledermatology is traditionally categorized into two different models based on the technology that is employed: store-and-forward (S&F) teledermatology, and live, interactive (LI) teledermatology (Goldyne & Armstrong, 2010). While hybrid models (a combination of S&F and LI technology) are practiced at selected institutions, this chapter focuses primarily on S&F and LI models. We will present operational flows of these two technology-enabled modalities, common outcomes measures used for evaluation of teledermatology quality metrics, and economic analyses. At the end of the chapter (in section 5), we will consider a novel, technology-independent framework for categorizing teledermatology models as well. This system relies on classification of teledermatology based on healthcare delivery models, and serves as an alternative way to organize and evaluate the provision of teledermatologic care. Store-and-forward teledermatologyStore-and-forward teledermatology is an asynchronous means for providing dermatologic care, as it relies on the asynchronous transmission of static digital images, patient histories, and specialist recommendations rather than real-time interaction between the specialist and the patient (Goldyne & Armstrong, 2010). In the S&F model, a medical staff personnel at the referral site typically takes images of the relevant skin condition and obtains medical history. This information is then sent to a dermatologist via a secure internet connection. The dermatologist evaluates the patient's condition asynchronously and transmits the recommendations back to the primary care provider at the referral site (Pak et al., 2009). Outcomes measures of store-and-forward teledermatologyTeledermatology studies have assessed numerous outcomes measures, including learning effects, length of consultation, and technical aspects (Eminovic et al., 2007). We will focus this discussion on four extensively used outcomes measures: diagnostic accuracy, diagnostic reliability, clinical outcomes, and satisfaction.

show abstract