Digital photographs were taken by a trainee dermatologist of the presenting lesions of 100 unselected, consecutive new patients. For the 38 patients presenting with rashes there was clinical disagreement in only four cases (10%). For the 62 patients with tumours there was clinical disagreement in three cases (3.8%). In a further three cases both clinicians agreed on a differential diagnosis which was subsequently disproved by histological findings and clinical progress. The study demonstrated that an affordable, low-resolution, fixed-focus digital camera with close-up lenses could provide diagnostically useful images suitable for telediagnosis in dermatology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KeohaneS, HerdM, BentonC. Trends in dermatology out patient referrals in south-east Scotland 1981-1984. Poster presentation. Scottish Dermatological Society, 26th Annual General Meeting, Carlisle, June 1996
2.
deBerkerDAR, ReesJL, JonesK. Can photographic referrals ensure priority is given to dysplastic lesions? Poster presentation. 76th annual meeting of the British Association of Dermatologists, Bournemouth, July 1996. British Journal of Dermatology1996; 135(suppl. 47):32
3.
HartgeP, HollyEA, HalpernA. Recognition and classification of clinically dyplastic naevi from photographs.Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention1995; 4: 37-40
4.
StoeckerWV, MossRH. Digital imaging in dermatology.Computerised Medical Imaging and Graphics1992; 16: 145-50
5.
PeredniaDA, BrownNA. Teledermatology; one application of telemedicine.Bulletin of the Medical Library Association1995; 83: 42-7
6.
WilcoxLA, GrimwoodRE. A comparative study of digital images versus 35 mm images.Military Medicine1995; 160: 470-2
7.
SassonM, SchiffT, StillerMJ. Photography without film; low-cost digital cameras come of age in dermatology.International Journal of Dermatology1994; 33: 113-15
