Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKatragadda, Chinmayee
dc.contributor.authorFinnane, Anna
dc.contributor.authorSoyer, H. Peter
dc.contributor.authorMarghoob, Ashfaq A.
dc.contributor.authorHalpern, Allan
dc.contributor.authorMalvehy, Josep
dc.contributor.authorKittler, Harald
dc.contributor.authorHofmann-Wellenhof, Rainer
dc.contributor.authorDa Silva, Dennis
dc.contributor.authorAbraham, Ivo
dc.contributor.authorCuriel-Lewandrowski, Clara
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-21T17:57:39Z
dc.date.available2017-04-21T17:57:39Z
dc.date.issued2017-02-01
dc.identifier.citationTechnique Standards for Skin Lesion Imaging 2017, 153 (2):207 JAMA Dermatologyen
dc.identifier.issn2168-6068
dc.identifier.doi10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.3949
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/623192
dc.description.abstractIMPORTANCE Variability in the metrics for image acquisition at the total body, regional, close-up, and dermoscopic levels impacts the quality and generalizability of skin images. Consensus guidelines are indicated to achieve universal imaging standards in dermatology. OBJECTIVE To achieve consensus among members of the International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC) on standards for image acquisition metrics using a hybrid Delphi method. EVIDENCE REVIEW Delphi study with 5 rounds of ratings and revisions until relative consensus was achieved. The initial set of statements was developed by a core group (CG) on the basis of a literature review and clinical experience followed by 2 rounds of rating and revisions. The consensus process was validated by an extended group (EG) of ISIC members through 2 rounds of scoring and revisions. In all rounds, respondents rated the draft recommendations on a 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) scale, explained ratings of less than 5, and optionally provided comments. At any stage, a recommendation was retained if both mean and median rating was 4 or higher. RESULTS The initial set of 45 items (round 1) was expanded by the CG to 56 variants in round 2, subsequently reduced to 42 items scored by the EG in round 3, yielding an EG set of 33 recommendations (rounds 4 and 5): general recommendation (1 guideline), lighting (5), background color (3), field of view (3), image orientation (8), focus/depth of field (3), resolution (4), scale (3), color calibration (2), and image storage (1). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This iterative process of ratings and comments yielded a strong consensus on standards for skin imaging in dermatology practice. Adoption of these methods for image standardization is likely to improve clinical practice, information exchange, electronic health record documentation, harmonization of clinical studies and database development, and clinical decision support. Feasibility and validity testing under real-world clinical conditions is indicated.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherAMER MEDICAL ASSOCen
dc.relation.urlhttp://archderm.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?doi=10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.3949en
dc.rights© 2017, American Medical Associationen
dc.titleTechnique Standards for Skin Lesion Imagingen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.contributor.departmentUniv Arizona, Ctr Hlth Outcomes & Pharmacoecon Resen
dc.contributor.departmentUniv Arizona, Ctr Cancen
dc.contributor.departmentUniv Arizona, Dept Dermatolen
dc.identifier.journalJAMA Dermatologyen
dc.description.note12 month embargo; Published Online: November 23, 2016.en
dc.description.collectioninformationThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at repository@u.library.arizona.edu.en
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of Arizona Center for Health Outcomes and Pharmacoeconomic Research, Tucson
dc.contributor.institutionDermatology Research Centre, Translational Research Institute, School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
dc.contributor.institutionDermatology Research Centre, Translational Research Institute, School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia3Dermatology Department, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia
dc.contributor.institutionDermatology Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
dc.contributor.institutionDermatology Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Dermatology, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Wien, Austria
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria
dc.contributor.institutionCanfield Scientific, Fairfield, New Jersey
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of Arizona Center for Health Outcomes and Pharmacoeconomic Research, Tucson9University of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of Arizona Cancer Center, Tucson10Department of Dermatology, University of Arizona, Tucson
refterms.dateFOA2017-11-24T00:00:00Z
html.description.abstractIMPORTANCE Variability in the metrics for image acquisition at the total body, regional, close-up, and dermoscopic levels impacts the quality and generalizability of skin images. Consensus guidelines are indicated to achieve universal imaging standards in dermatology. OBJECTIVE To achieve consensus among members of the International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC) on standards for image acquisition metrics using a hybrid Delphi method. EVIDENCE REVIEW Delphi study with 5 rounds of ratings and revisions until relative consensus was achieved. The initial set of statements was developed by a core group (CG) on the basis of a literature review and clinical experience followed by 2 rounds of rating and revisions. The consensus process was validated by an extended group (EG) of ISIC members through 2 rounds of scoring and revisions. In all rounds, respondents rated the draft recommendations on a 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) scale, explained ratings of less than 5, and optionally provided comments. At any stage, a recommendation was retained if both mean and median rating was 4 or higher. RESULTS The initial set of 45 items (round 1) was expanded by the CG to 56 variants in round 2, subsequently reduced to 42 items scored by the EG in round 3, yielding an EG set of 33 recommendations (rounds 4 and 5): general recommendation (1 guideline), lighting (5), background color (3), field of view (3), image orientation (8), focus/depth of field (3), resolution (4), scale (3), color calibration (2), and image storage (1). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This iterative process of ratings and comments yielded a strong consensus on standards for skin imaging in dermatology practice. Adoption of these methods for image standardization is likely to improve clinical practice, information exchange, electronic health record documentation, harmonization of clinical studies and database development, and clinical decision support. Feasibility and validity testing under real-world clinical conditions is indicated.


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
jamadermatology_Katragadda_201 ...
Size:
209.5Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Final Published Version

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record