Vañó-Galván S, Hidalgo A, Aguayo-Leiva I, Gil-Mosquera M, Ríos-Buceta L, Plana M N, Zamora J, Martorell-Calatayud A, Jaén P
Servicio de Dermatología, Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid, España.
Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2011 May;102(4):277-83. doi: 10.1016/j.ad.2010.11.006. Epub 2011 Mar 3.
The aim of this study was to assess the validity of store-and-forward teledermatology as a tool to support physicians in primary care and hospital emergency services and reduce the requirement for face-to-face appointments. Diagnostic validity and the approach chosen for patient management (face-to-face vs teledermatology) were compared according to patient origin and diagnostic group.
Digital images from 100 patients were assessed by 20 different dermatologists and the diagnoses offered were compared with those provided in face-to-face appointments (gold standard). The proposed management of the different groups of patients was also compared.
The percentage complete agreement was 69.05% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.9%-71.0%). The aggregate agreement was 87.80% (95% CI, 86.1%-89.0%). When questioned about appropriate management of the patients, observers elected face-to-face consultation in 60% of patients (95% CI, 58%-61%) and teledermatology in 40% (95% CI, 38%-41%). Diagnostic validity was higher in patients from primary care (76.1% complete agreement and 91.8% aggregate agreement) than those from hospital emergency services (61.8% complete agreement, 83.4% aggregate agreement) (p < 0.001) and teledermatology was also chosen more often in patients from primary care compared with those from emergency services (42% vs 38%; p=0.003). In terms of diagnostic group, higher validity was observed for patients with infectious diseases (73.3% complete agreement and 91.3% aggregate agreement) compared to those with inflammatory disease (70.8% complete agreement and 86.4% aggregate agreement) or tumors (63.0% complete agreement and 87.2% aggregate agreement) (p <0.001). Teledermatology was also chosen more often in patients with infectious diseases (52%) than in those with inflammatory disease (40%) or tumors (28%) (p <0.001).
Store-and-forward teledermatology has a high level of diagnostic validity, particularly in those cases referred from primary care and in infectious diseases. It can be considered useful for the diagnosis and management of patients at a distance and would reduce the requirement for face-to-face consultation by 40%.
本研究旨在评估存储转发式远程皮肤病学作为一种工具,辅助基层医疗和医院急诊科医生工作并减少面对面会诊需求的有效性。根据患者来源和诊断分组,比较诊断有效性以及针对患者管理所选择的方式(面对面会诊与远程皮肤病学)。
20名不同的皮肤科医生对100例患者的数字图像进行评估,并将给出的诊断与面对面会诊时提供的诊断(金标准)进行比较。同时也比较了针对不同患者组建议的管理方式。
完全一致率为69.05%(95%置信区间[CI],66.9%-71.0%)。总体一致率为87.80%(95%CI,86.1%-89.0%)。当被问及患者的适当管理方式时,观察者在60%的患者中选择面对面会诊(95%CI,58%-61%),在40%的患者中选择远程皮肤病学(95%CI,38%-41%)。基层医疗患者的诊断有效性更高(完全一致率76.1%,总体一致率91.8%),高于医院急诊科患者(完全一致率61.8%,总体一致率83.4%)(p<0.001),与急诊科患者相比,基层医疗患者也更常选择远程皮肤病学(42%对38%;p=0.003)。在诊断分组方面,与炎症性疾病患者(完全一致率70.8%,总体一致率86.4%)或肿瘤患者(完全一致率63.0%,总体一致率87.2%)相比,传染病患者的诊断有效性更高(完全一致率73.3%,总体一致率91.3%)(p<0.001)。传染病患者选择远程皮肤病学的比例(52%)也高于炎症性疾病患者(40%)或肿瘤患者(28%)(p<0.001)。
存储转发式远程皮肤病学具有较高的诊断有效性,尤其是在基层医疗转诊的病例和传染病方面。它可被认为对远程诊断和管理患者有用,并且可将会面会诊需求降低40%。