Consensus Guidelines for Teledermatology: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Consensus guidelines and recommendations play an important role in fostering quality, safety, and best practices, as they represent an expert interpretation of the biomedical literature and its application to practice. However, it is unclear whether the recent collective experience of implementing telemedicine and the concurrent growth in the evidence base for teledermatology have resulted in more robust guidance. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to describe the extent and nature of currently available guidance, defined as consensus guidelines and recommendations available for telemedicine in dermatology, with guidance defined as consensus or evidence-based guidelines, protocols, or recommendations. METHODS: We conducted a single-reviewer scoping review of the literature to assess the extent and nature of available guidance, consensus guidelines, or recommendations related to teledermatology. We limited the review to published material in English since 2013, reflecting approximately the past 10 years. We conducted the review in November and December of the year 2022. RESULTS: We identified 839 potentially eligible publications, with 9 additional records identified through organizational websites. A total of 15 publications met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The guidelines focused on varied topics and populations about dermatology and skin diseases. However, the most frequent focus was general dermatology (8/15, 53%). Approximately half of the telemedicine guidance described in the publications was specific to dermatology practice in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The publications were largely published in or after the year 2020 (13/15, 87%). Geographical origin spanned several different nations, including Australia, the United States, European countries, and India. CONCLUSIONS: We found an increase in COVID-19-specific teledermatology guidance during 2020, in addition to general teledermatology guidance during the period of the study. Primary sources of general teledermatology guidance reported in the biomedical literature are the University of Queensland's Centre for Online Health and Australasian College of Dermatologists E-Health Committee, and the American Telemedicine Association. There is strong evidence of international engagement and interest. Despite the recent increase in research reports related to telemedicine, there is a relative lack of new guidance based on COVID-19 lessons and innovations. There is a need to review recent evidence and update existing recommendations. Additionally, there is a need for guidance that addresses emerging technologies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.095 | 0.326 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.045 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".