We appreciate Epstein's careful comments on the gap between research and practice in ELM, but we are more concerned with the aspect of training and the experience in using this technique than the type of instrumentation used. No one has so far addressed the differences between the instruments used by investigators and those available to practitioners in a formal study, but since we are highly familiar with both we are reasonably sure that there is no real difference in the diagnostic accuracy obtained with either. In our institution, hand-held devices (such as the Delta 10 Dermatoscope and the Episcope) are routinely used in our daily work in the outpatient clinic, whereas binocular operating microscopes are mainly employed by clinics for selected lesions that need documentation. Although we have not performed a formal study comparing the two types of instruments, it is the consensus in our group that, as far as
Wolff K. Instrumentation for Epiluminescence Microscopy: The Gap Between Research and Practice-Reply. Arch Dermatol. 1996;132(1):92. doi:10.1001/archderm.1996.03890250106023
Monkeypox Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.