Kittler Harald, Marghoob Ashfaq A, Argenziano Giuseppe, Carrera Cristina, Curiel-Lewandrowski Clara, Hofmann-Wellenhof Rainer, Malvehy Josep, Menzies Scott, Puig Susana, Rabinovitz Harold, Stolz Wilhelm, Saida Toshiaki, Soyer H Peter, Siegel Eliot, Stoecker William V, Scope Alon, Tanaka Masaru, Thomas Luc, Tschandl Philipp, Zalaudek Iris, Halpern Allan
Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Dermatology Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2016 Jun;74(6):1093-106. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2015.12.038. Epub 2016 Feb 17.
Evolving dermoscopic terminology motivated us to initiate a new consensus.
We sought to establish a dictionary of standardized terms.
We reviewed the medical literature, conducted a survey, and convened a discussion among experts.
Two competitive terminologies exist, a more metaphoric terminology that includes numerous terms and a descriptive terminology based on 5 basic terms. In a survey among members of the International Society of Dermoscopy (IDS) 23.5% (n = 201) participants preferentially use descriptive terminology, 20.1% (n = 172) use metaphoric terminology, and 484 (56.5%) use both. More participants who had been initially trained by metaphoric terminology prefer using descriptive terminology than vice versa (9.7% vs 2.6%, P < .001). Most new terms that were published since the last consensus conference in 2003 were unknown to the majority of the participants. There was uniform consensus that both terminologies are suitable, that metaphoric terms need definitions, that synonyms should be avoided, and that the creation of new metaphoric terms should be discouraged. The expert panel proposed a dictionary of standardized terms taking account of metaphoric and descriptive terms.
A consensus seeks a workable compromise but does not guarantee its implementation.
The new consensus provides a revised framework of standardized terms to enhance the consistent use of dermoscopic terminology.
不断演变的皮肤镜术语促使我们发起一项新的共识。
我们试图建立一本标准化术语词典。
我们查阅了医学文献，进行了一项调查，并召集专家进行了讨论。
存在两种相互竞争的术语，一种是包含众多术语的更具隐喻性的术语，另一种是基于5个基本术语的描述性术语。在国际皮肤镜学会（IDS）成员的一项调查中，23.5%（n = 201）的参与者优先使用描述性术语，20.1%（n = 172）使用隐喻性术语，484人（56.5%）同时使用两种术语。最初接受隐喻性术语培训的参与者中，更喜欢使用描述性术语的人比反之的人更多（9.7%对2.6%，P <.001）。自2003年上次共识会议以来发表的大多数新术语，大多数参与者都不知道。大家一致认为，这两种术语都是合适的，隐喻性术语需要定义，应避免使用同义词，并且应不鼓励创造新的隐喻性术语。专家小组提出了一本考虑到隐喻性和描述性术语的标准化术语词典。
共识寻求可行的折衷方案，但不能保证其得到实施。
新的共识提供了一个修订后的标准化术语框架，以促进皮肤镜术语的一致使用。
