Table 1

Study demographics: patient and practitioner populations

Study detailsLocationStudy typePractitionersPatientsControl groupIntervention groupGender of patients (except where indicated)
(F/M) (%)
Age of patients (except where indicated) (years), mean (range)
PCPsSCPsPCPs and SCPsDPCSCCsStudies with patients from:Studies using images from:
Primary careSecondary careDPCSCCsPrimary careSecondary careDPCSCCs
Dermoscopy papers
Ahmadi et al 27 Maastricht/Limburg, The NetherlandsCase seriesNonePatients from 3 primary care practicesF=57.854.7 (60–79)
Argenziano et al 23 Barcelona, Spain; Naples, ItalyRCTNaked eyeDermoscopyC: F=62.4
I: F=62.3
C: 40 (2–90)
I: 41 (3–94)
Bourne et al 28 Brisbane, AustraliaDA studyClinical assessment and algorithmsBLINCK algorithmF=52.258 (30–60)
Chappuis et al 38 4 regions of FranceSurveyNonePCPs in FranceGPs: F=42.4GPs:
Koelink et al 24 Groningen, The NetherlandsRCTNaked eyeDermoscopyC: F=61.6
I: F=68.2
C: 54.7
I: 53.2
Menzies et al 29 USA, Germany and AustraliaDA studyIndependent cliniciansSolarScan assessmentNRNR
Menzies et al 14 Perth, AustraliaSITPCP decision before interventionOutcome after dermoscopy and SDDINRNR
Morris et al 39 Florida, USASurveyNonePCPsClinicians: F=41.6Clinicians: median
40–49 years
Morris et al 40 Florida, USASurveyNonePractising physiciansClinicians: F=34.7Clinicians:
Pagnanelli et al 30 Rome, ItalyDA study*PretrainingPost-trainingNRNR
Rogers et al 31 New York, USADA studyHistology/expert opinionClinicians using 3 algorithmsF=53.3Median
31–40 years
Rogers et al 32 New York, USADA studyHistology/expert opinionClinicians using 3 algorithmsF=53.3Median
31–40 years
Rosendahl et al 43 Queensland, AustraliaSITNaked eyeDermoscopy imagesF=32.657
SD: 17 years
Rosendahl et al 25 Australian SCARD databaseCohort studyHistology diagnosisPCP decisionNRNR
Secker et al 44 Leiden, The NetherlandsDA studyPCPs before educationAfter educationF=51.845.2
Westerhoff et al 33 Sydney, AustraliaDA studyPCP diagnosisPCPs ± dermoscopy ± educationNRNR
Teledermoscopy papers
Börve et al 34 Gothenburg, SwedenCase–control studyPaper-based referralsTeledermoscopy referralsC: F=57.1
I: F=61.4
C: 61 (18–97)
I: 54 (18–93)
Ferrándiz et al 26 Andalucia, SpainRCTClinical imagesClinical and dermoscopy imagesC: F=52.88
I: F=62.28
C: 57.33
I: 54.96
Grimaldi et al 35 Siena, ItalyDA studyJudgement before dermoscopyJudgement after dermoscopyNRNR
Livingstone and Solomon41 Ruislip, UKCase seriesExpert diagnosis and standard costsTeledermoscopy referralsNRNR
Moreno-Ramirez et al 36 Sevilla, SpainDA studyTele
dermatology referrals
Same patients
+ dermoscopy images
F=70.538.8 (1–73)
Stratton and Loescher42 Arizona, USASurveyNoneNurse practitionersNurse practitioners: F=92Nurse practitioners:
van der Heijden et al 37 Amsterdam, The NetherlandsCohort studyFace-to-face consult ± histologyTeledermoscopy consult (same patients)F=55Median 47 years, 6–84 years
  • Embedded ImageColoured boxes denote that practitioners and patients from these populations were included in the corresponding study

  • *Minimal dermoscopy experience, although secondary care physicians.

  • †Practitioner population not specified.

  • BLINCK, Benign, Lonely, Irregular, Nervous, Change, Known clues; C, control group; DA, diagnostic accuracy; DPCSCC, dedicated primary care skin cancer clinic; F, female; GP, General Practitioner; I, intervention group; M, male; NR, not reported; PCP, primary care physician; RCT, randomised controlled trial; SCARD, Skin Cancer Audit Research Database; SCP, secondary care physician; SD, Standard Deviation; SDDI, short-term sequential digital dermoscopy imaging; SIT, sequential intervention trial.