Factors driving the use of dermoscopy in Europe: a pan-European survey

Forsea, Ana‐Maria; Tschandl, Philipp; Marmol, Véronique Del; Zalaudek, Iris; Soyer, H. Peter; Geller, Alan C.; Argenziano, Giuseppe

doi:10.1111/bjd.14895

Cited by 35 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is thus of vital importance to examine how to further reduce biopsies by dermoscopy also in public hospitals. Our prior finding had revealed that dermatologists working in public facilities were the least likely to use dermoscopy at all, or if they used it, it was less intensively; they were also the most likely to report the lack of dermoscopy equipment as a barrier to use dermoscopy. Therefore, proper training and improved access to dermoscopy equipment, especially digital, may be the main ways to address this issue in public hospitals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The impact of dermoscopy on melanoma detection in the practice of dermatologists in Europe: results of a pan‐European survey

Forsea

Tschandl

Zalaudek

et al. 2017

Acad Dermatol Venereol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The impact of dermoscopy on melanoma detection in the practice of dermatologists in Europe: results of a pan‐European survey

Forsea

Tschandl

Zalaudek

et al. 2017

Acad Dermatol Venereol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This heterogeneity poses significant limitations in evaluating the results of different studies comparatively, in designing new studies on the basis of pre‐existing evidence and, overall, in expanding and spreading the existing knowledge in dermoscopy of dermatological diseases. Indeed, dermoscopy in general dermatology is still seen with reservation by some colleagues and has not yet acquired a standard role in the daily practice for applications other than skin neoplasms, despite evidence suggesting that it improves diagnostic accuracy …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Standardization of dermoscopic terminology and basic dermoscopic parameters to evaluate in general dermatology (non‐neoplastic dermatoses): an expert consensus on behalf of the International Dermoscopy Society

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Background Over the last few years, several articles on dermoscopy of non‐neoplastic dermatoses have been published, yet there is poor consistency in the terminology among different studies. Objectives We aimed to standardize the dermoscopic terminology and identify basic parameters to evaluate in non‐neoplastic dermatoses through an expert consensus. Methods The modified Delphi method was followed, with two phases: (i) identification of a list of possible items based on a systematic literature review and (ii) selection of parameters by a panel of experts through a three‐step iterative procedure (blinded e‐mail interaction in rounds 1 and 3 and a face‐to‐face meeting in round 2). Initial panellists were recruited via e‐mail from all over the world based on their expertise on dermoscopy of non‐neoplastic dermatoses. Results Twenty‐four international experts took part in all rounds of the consensus and 13 further international participants were also involved in round 2. Five standardized basic parameters were identified: (i) vessels (including morphology and distribution); (ii) scales (including colour and distribution); (iii) follicular findings; (iv) ‘other structures’ (including colour and morphology); and (v) ‘specific clues’. For each of them, possible variables were selected, with a total of 31 different subitems reaching agreement at the end of the consensus (all of the 29 proposed initially plus two more added in the course of the consensus procedure). Conclusions This expert consensus provides a set of standardized basic dermoscopic parameters to follow when evaluating inflammatory, infiltrative and infectious dermatoses. This tool, if adopted by clinicians and researchers in this field, is likely to enhance the reproducibility and comparability of existing and future research findings and uniformly expand the universal knowledge on dermoscopy in general dermatology. What's already known about this topic? Over the last few years, several papers have been published attempting to describe the dermoscopic features of non‐neoplastic dermatoses, yet there is poor consistency in the terminology among different studies. What does this study add? The present expert consensus provides a set of standardized basic dermoscopic parameters to follow when evaluating inflammatory, infiltrative and infectious dermatoses. This consensus should enhance the reproducibility and comparability of existing and future research findings and uniformly expand the universal knowledge on dermoscopy in general dermatology.

show abstract

“…In the article by Forsea et al , an author's surname among the members of the Eurodermoscopy Working Group was misspelt as J. Hegy. It should have been J. Hegyi.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Corrigendum

2017

Br J Dermatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Factors driving the use of dermoscopy in Europe: a pan-European survey

Abstract: Expanding access to dermoscopy equipment, especially in public healthcare facilities and establishing dermoscopy training during dermatology residency would further enhance the substantially high dermoscopy use across European countries.

Cited by 35 publications

References 41 publications

The impact of dermoscopy on melanoma detection in the practice of dermatologists in Europe: results of a pan‐European survey

The impact of dermoscopy on melanoma detection in the practice of dermatologists in Europe: results of a pan‐European survey

Standardization of dermoscopic terminology and basic dermoscopic parameters to evaluate in general dermatology (non‐neoplastic dermatoses): an expert consensus on behalf of the International Dermoscopy Society

Corrigendum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About