Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

When Are Single Reader Evaluations Insufficient in Teledermoscopic Assessments? : Analyses of a Retrospective Cohort Study

Nätterdahl, Carolina LU orcid ; Kristensson, Hedvig LU ; Persson, Bertil LU ; Lapins, Jan ; Ivert, Lina U ; Radros, Niki ; Schultz, Karina ; Sand, Cecilia LU orcid ; Lundgren, Sigrid LU and Pahlow Mose, Anja LU , et al. (2025) In Telemedicine and e-Health 31(5). p.579-589
Abstract

Background: Teledermoscopy (TDS) emerges as an efficient tool for diagnosing skin lesions. In Sweden, double reading is the standard of care, but risk factors for misdiagnosis or mismanagement using single reader evaluations (SRE) are not well-studied. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of SRE compared with the gold standard in TDS. Methods: This retrospective cohort study involved 1,997 TDS referrals sent from general practitioners to dermatologists in Stockholm, Sweden, selected based on dermoscopic diagnoses. All referrals underwent double reader evaluations (DRE). Each case was reassessed by a single external assessor, blinded to the DRE result. Based on predefined rules, a gold standard for the most correct diagnosis was... (More)

Background: Teledermoscopy (TDS) emerges as an efficient tool for diagnosing skin lesions. In Sweden, double reading is the standard of care, but risk factors for misdiagnosis or mismanagement using single reader evaluations (SRE) are not well-studied. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of SRE compared with the gold standard in TDS. Methods: This retrospective cohort study involved 1,997 TDS referrals sent from general practitioners to dermatologists in Stockholm, Sweden, selected based on dermoscopic diagnoses. All referrals underwent double reader evaluations (DRE). Each case was reassessed by a single external assessor, blinded to the DRE result. Based on predefined rules, a gold standard for the most correct diagnosis was established. Diagnostic accuracy and risk factors for misdiagnosis were evaluated. The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT05033678). Results: Primary diagnosis by SRE agreed with the gold standard on benign-malignant classification in 84% of cases. Discordance was linked to lower diagnostic confidence and more frequent recommendations for further intervention. SRE achieved a benign-malignant sensitivity and specificity of 84% (95% confidence interval: 81-87% and 82-86%, respectively). The risk of overdiagnosis increased 96 times when assessors reported being "very unconfident." Out of a total of 311 melanomas, melanoma in situ, lentigo maligna, and severely dysplastic nevi, 62 were not recognized in the SRE primary diagnosis. However, 50 of these misdiagnosed lesions were still recommended for accurate management. Conclusions: The confidence level of TDS assessors heavily influences diagnostic accuracy. Therefore, when diagnostic confidence is perceived as moderate or low, additional interventions should be considered.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and , et al. (More)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and (Less)
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Telemedicine and e-Health
volume
31
issue
5
pages
579 - 589
publisher
SAGE Publications
external identifiers
  • pmid:39869017
  • scopus:85217923219
ISSN
1530-5627
DOI
10.1089/tmj.2024.0532
project
Improving Skin Cancer Diagnosis and Management in Teledermoscopy and Mohs Surgery
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
75b33172-838c-4afa-9385-649dfb399341
date added to LUP
2025-02-05 10:59:36
date last changed
2026-05-07 23:29:14
@article{75b33172-838c-4afa-9385-649dfb399341,
  abstract     = {{<p>Background: Teledermoscopy (TDS) emerges as an efficient tool for diagnosing skin lesions. In Sweden, double reading is the standard of care, but risk factors for misdiagnosis or mismanagement using single reader evaluations (SRE) are not well-studied. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of SRE compared with the gold standard in TDS. Methods: This retrospective cohort study involved 1,997 TDS referrals sent from general practitioners to dermatologists in Stockholm, Sweden, selected based on dermoscopic diagnoses. All referrals underwent double reader evaluations (DRE). Each case was reassessed by a single external assessor, blinded to the DRE result. Based on predefined rules, a gold standard for the most correct diagnosis was established. Diagnostic accuracy and risk factors for misdiagnosis were evaluated. The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT05033678). Results: Primary diagnosis by SRE agreed with the gold standard on benign-malignant classification in 84% of cases. Discordance was linked to lower diagnostic confidence and more frequent recommendations for further intervention. SRE achieved a benign-malignant sensitivity and specificity of 84% (95% confidence interval: 81-87% and 82-86%, respectively). The risk of overdiagnosis increased 96 times when assessors reported being "very unconfident." Out of a total of 311 melanomas, melanoma in situ, lentigo maligna, and severely dysplastic nevi, 62 were not recognized in the SRE primary diagnosis. However, 50 of these misdiagnosed lesions were still recommended for accurate management. Conclusions: The confidence level of TDS assessors heavily influences diagnostic accuracy. Therefore, when diagnostic confidence is perceived as moderate or low, additional interventions should be considered.</p>}},
  author       = {{Nätterdahl, Carolina and Kristensson, Hedvig and Persson, Bertil and Lapins, Jan and Ivert, Lina U and Radros, Niki and Schultz, Karina and Sand, Cecilia and Lundgren, Sigrid and Pahlow Mose, Anja and Ingvar, Jonas and Dizdarevic, Adis and Nielsen, Kari and Ingvar, Åsa}},
  issn         = {{1530-5627}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  month        = {{01}},
  number       = {{5}},
  pages        = {{579--589}},
  publisher    = {{SAGE Publications}},
  series       = {{Telemedicine and e-Health}},
  title        = {{When Are Single Reader Evaluations Insufficient in Teledermoscopic Assessments? : Analyses of a Retrospective Cohort Study}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2024.0532}},
  doi          = {{10.1089/tmj.2024.0532}},
  volume       = {{31}},
  year         = {{2025}},
}