Teledermatology: an evidence map of systematic reviews.

Background: Although the number of teledermatology studies is increasing, not all variables have been researched in equal depth, so there remains a lack of robust evidence for some teledermatology initiatives. This review describes the landscape of teledermatology research and identifies knowledge gaps and research needs. This evidence map can be used to inform clinicians about the current knowledge about teledermatology and guide researchers for future studies.

Methods: Our evidence map was conducted according to the Campbell Collaboration checklist for evidence and gap maps. Eight databases were searched (CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, and OpenGray), and only included systematic reviews of teledermatology involving humans published in English; while excluding non-systematic reviews (i.e., abstracts, conference proceedings, editorials, commentaries, or letters). From 909 records, 14 systematic reviews published between 2004 and 2022 were included. Our analysis focused on the systematic reviews' characteristics, dermatological conditions studied, rate of overlap and quality assessment of primary studies reviewed, and main findings reported.

Results: Teledermatology was reportedly comparable with clinic dermatology and generally accepted by patients as a mode of care delivery for dermatological conditions. However, there are concerns about privacy, communication, completeness of information transmitted, familiarity with the technology, and technical problems. Healthcare professionals were generally satisfied with teledermatology but found telemedicine consultations longer than face-to-face consultations, and less confident in asynchronous teledermatology than conventional consultations. Teledermatology was reportedly more cost-effective than clinic dermatology; especially considering the distance traveled by patients, referral volume to teledermatology, and clinic dermatology costs. Although patients and providers are satisfied with teledermatology, face-to-face dermatology has higher diagnostic and management accuracy. Teledermatology was also used for training medical professionals. Regarding the validity and reliability of teledermatology outcome measures, no significant discussions were found.

Conclusions: COVID-19 spotlighted telemedicine in clinical care, and we must ensure telemedicine continually improves with robust research. Further research is necessary for establishing a standardized outcome set, enhancing accuracy, concordance, cost-effectiveness, and safety, comparing teledermatology with non-dermatologist care, examining its effectiveness in non-Western low and middle-income countries, and incorporating patient involvement for improved study design.

Systematic review registration: https://www.researchregistry.com/ (Unique Identifying Number: reviewregistry878).