Live interactive teledermatology compared to in-person care - a systematic review.

Abstract

Teledermatology is a rapidly developing field of dermatological care, giving the opportunity to deliver more efficient healthcare to patients in remote areas. Live interactive (LI) teledermatology uses videoconferencing and, hence, allows for direct communication. A current overview on effectiveness, costs, feasibility and accuracy of LI applications compared to standard care is missing. The present systematic review provides this overview on LI teledermatology. Two databases were searched until April 2019, followed by title, abstract and full-text screening. Additionally, reference lists of the detected eligible articles were screened for further eligible studies. Studies comparing LI applications with standard care were included. Data on study design, sample size, country, objectives, main findings and characteristics of LI applications were extracted. Results on time effectiveness, costs, accuracy and feasibility of LI applications were synthesized. Additionally, the quality of included studies was assessed. Twenty-three publications were included in the final analysis: seventeen case-control studies and six randomized controlled trials. Included studies were published between 1997 and 2017. Study quality differed across studies. The studies were carried out in eight different countries. Eleven studies focused on patient consultation, three on patient organization and nine on combined applications of the aforementioned. Nine studies investigated applications facilitating patient-provider interaction. Fourteen studies evaluated applications combining patient-provider and provider-provider interaction, meaning the patient sits next to one provider while using LI applications to interact with another provider. This review reveals that LI applications can be a time effective substitute of or supplement to standard dermatological care. Results demonstrated that LI and standard care are comparable with regard to feasibility and accuracy. No clear tendencies can be reported with regard to costs. However, there is a lack of current comparative studies.