4.6 Article

The impact of dermoscopy on the management of pigmented lesions in everyday clinical practice of general dermatologists: a prospective study

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 162, 期 3, 页码 563-567

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2009.09551.x

关键词

dermatoscopy; dermoscopy; diagnosis; melanoma; pigmented skin lesions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Dermoscopy greatly improves the clinical diagnosis of pigmented lesions. Few studies have investigated, however, how dermoscopy is guiding management decisions in everyday clinical practice. In addition, most studies have been performed in the setting of dermoscopy experts working in pigmented lesion clinics. Objectives To assess the impact of dermoscopy on clinical diagnosis and management decisions for pigmented lesions in everyday practice of general dermatologists. Methods We performed a prospective study in general dermatology clinics in community hospitals run by dermatologists with intermediate dermoscopy experience and expertise. Each clinician independently included suspicious lesions from consecutive patients. Pre- and postdermoscopy diagnoses and management decisions were recorded. Pathology was used as reference diagnosis. Results In total, 209 suspicious lesions were included in the study by 17 dermatologists. Fourteen lesions were histologically proven in situ or invasive malignant melanomas. Based on clinical diagnoses, dermoscopy improved sensitivity from 0.79 to 0.86 (P = 1 0). All 14 melanomas were intended to be excised based on naked eye examination alone, independent of dermoscopic evaluation. Specificity increased from 0.96 to 0.98 (P = 0 22). Dermoscopy resulted in a 9% reduction of the number of excisions. Conclusions Dermoscopy reduced the number of excisions, but did not improve the detection of melanomas. Our results suggest that in everyday clinical practice of general dermatologists the main contribution of dermoscopy is a reduction of unnecessary excisions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据