Telemedicine in dermatology: a randomised controlled trial

To compare the clinical equivalence, patient and clinician opinion of store-and-forward (SF) teledermatology with conventional face-to-face consultation in setting a management plan for new, adult outpatient referrals. To assess the equivalence of digital photography and dermoscopy with conventional face-to-face consultation in the management of suspected cases of malignant melanoma or squamous cell carcinoma. For the SF teledermatology aspect of the study, a prospective randomised controlled trial was carried out. Eight general practices and a hospital dermatology department in Sheffield, England. For the SF teledermatology part of the study, adults (aged 16 years and over) requiring a new (not seen by a hospital dermatologist within the past year) consultant opinion. For the digital photography element of the study, adults (aged 16 years and over) requiring a consultant opinion due to suspicion of malignant melanoma or squamous cell carcinoma. Patients in the telemedicine intervention group were referred to the consultant, and managed as far as possible using one or more digital still images and a structured, electronic referral and reply. The control group was managed by conventional hospital outpatient consultation. Patients referred to the 2-week wait clinic were invited to have a series of digital photographs, with and without dermoscopy, immediately before their face-to-face consultation. A second consultant viewed these and outlined a diagnosis and management plan which was compared with the actual management. Both were compared with the definitive diagnosis (either the final clinical or histological diagnosis, where undertaken). The concordance between the consultant who had managed the case and an independent consultant who gave a second face-to-face opinion. A total of 208 patients were recruited. There was also a greater loss of control cases (26%) than intervention cases (17%). A statistically significant difference in ages between the two groups completing the study (mean age of intervention group 43.6 years, control group 49.7 years, p = 0.039) indicates that this may have introduced a bias between the two groups. A further possible source of bias is the delay (mean difference of 54 days, p = 0.0001) between the SF opinion and the second opinion in the SF group, whereas control patients usually received their second opinion on the same day as their outpatient appointment. In 55% (51/92) of telemedicine cases and 78% (57/73) of control cases,