| Title |
Systematic review of mobile phone-based teledermatology
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archives of Dermatological Research, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00403-018-1862-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ashley K. Clark, Suzana Bosanac, Baran Ho, Raja K. Sivamani |
| Abstract |
Teledermatology is an expanding field within dermatology that has grown and become more clinically accepted by both patients and doctors. With approximately 260 million mobile phone users in the US and 4-6 billion worldwide with access to mobile phones, teledermatology serves as a potentially useful tool for diagnosis and management (Samkange-Zeeb and Blettner in Emerg Health Threats J, https://doi.org/10.3134/ehtj.09.005 , 2009). In this review, we provide a detailed overview of mobile phone technology and the accumulating evidence for its incorporation into dermatology. Key questions addressed include accuracy and concordance between mobile teledermatology and face-to-face dermatology for the diagnosis of skin conditions. Similarly, accuracy and concordance were compared for the management of skin conditions. To track the development of mobile phone technology, we also assessed how data were captured, stored, and displayed in teledermatology studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 53 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 19% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 12 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 6% |
| Engineering | 3 | 6% |
| Psychology | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 13 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 October 2018.
All research outputs
#15,294,462
of 24,717,821 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Dermatological Research
#948
of 1,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,136
of 346,002 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Dermatological Research
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,717,821 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,418 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 346,002 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.