Reliability and Validity of Mobile Teledermatology in Human Immunodeficiency Virus–Positive Patients in Botswana: A Pilot Study | Allergy and Clinical Immunology | JAMA Dermatology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.239.150.57. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Schmid-Grendelmeier  P, Doe  P, Pakenham-Walsh  N.  Teledermatology in sub-Saharan Africa.  Curr Probl Dermatol. 2003;32:233-246.PubMedGoogle Scholar
2.
Morrone  A.  Poverty, health and development in dermatology.  Int J Dermatol. 2007;46(suppl 2):1-9.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Spira  R, Mignard  M, Doutre  MS, Morlat  P, Dabis  F; Groupe d’Epidémiologie Clinique du SIDA en Aquitaine.  Prevalence of cutaneous disorders in a population of HIV-infected patients: Southwestern France, 1996.  Arch Dermatol. 1998;134(10):1208-1212.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Berger  TG, Obuch  ML, Goldschmidt  RH.  Dermatologic manifestations of HIV infection.  Am Fam Physician. 1990;41(6):1729-1742.PubMedGoogle Scholar
5.
Goh  BK, Chan  RK, Sen  P,  et al.  Spectrum of skin disorders in human immunodeficiency virus–infected patients in Singapore and the relationship to CD4 lymphocyte counts.  Int J Dermatol. 2007;46(7):695-699.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Ebner  C, Wurm  EM, Binder  B,  et al.  Mobile teledermatology: a feasibility study of 58 subjects using mobile phones.  J Telemed Telecare. 2008;14(1):2-7.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Chung  P, Yu  T, Scheinfeld  N.  Using cellphones for teledermatology, a preliminary study.  Dermatol Online J. 2007;13(3):2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
8.
Tran  K, Ayad  M, Weinberg  JL,  et al.  Mobile teledermatology in the developing world: implications of a feasibility study on 30 Egyptian patients with common skin diseases.  J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;64(2):302-309.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Massone  C, Lozzi  GP, Wurm  E,  et al.  Cellular phones in clinical teledermatology.  Arch Dermatol. 2005;141(10):1319-1320.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Braun  RP, Vecchietti  JL, Thomas  L,  et al.  Telemedical wound care using a new generation of mobile telephones: a feasibility study.  Arch Dermatol. 2005;141(2):254-258.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Azfar  RS, Weinberg  JL, Cavric  G,  et al.  HIV-positive patients in Botswana state that mobile teledermatology is an acceptable method for receiving dermatology care.  J Telemed Telecare. 2011;17(6):338-340.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Landis  JR, Koch  GG.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.  Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-174.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Braun  RP, Gukowicz-Krusin  D, Rabinovitz  H,  et al.  Agreement of dermatopathologists in the evaluation of clinically difficult melanocytic lesions: how golden is the ‘gold standard’?  Dermatology. 2012;224:51-58.Google ScholarCrossref
14.
Farmer  ER, Gonin  R, Hanna  MP.  Discordance in the histopathologic diagnosis of melanoma and melanocytic nevi between expert pathologists.  Hum Pathol. 1996;27(6):528-531.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Corona  R, Mele  A, Amini  M,  et al.  Interobserver variability on the histopathologic diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma and other pigmented skin lesions.  J Clin Oncol. 1996;14(4):1218-1223.PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
CRC Melanoma Pathology Panel.  A nationwide survey of observer variation in the diagnosis of thin cutaneous malignant melanoma including the MIN terminology.  J Clin Pathol. 1997;50(3):202-205.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Lodha  S, Saggar  S, Celebi  JT, Silvers  DN.  Discordance in the histopathologic diagnosis of difficult melanocytic neoplasms in the clinical setting.  J Cutan Pathol. 2008;35(4):349-352.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Levin  YS, Warshaw  EM.  Teledermatology: a review of reliability and accuracy of diagnosis and management.  Dermatol Clin. 2009;27(2):163-176, vii.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Moreno-Ramirez  D, Ferrandiz  L, Nieto-Garcia  A,  et al.  Store-and-forward teledermatology in skin cancer triage: experience and evaluation of 2009 teleconsultations.  Arch Dermatol. 2007;143(4):479-484.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
James  WD, Berger  T, Elston  DE.  Andrews' Diseases of the Skin: Clinical Dermatology.10th ed. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 2006.
Original Investigation
June 2014

Reliability and Validity of Mobile Teledermatology in Human Immunodeficiency Virus–Positive Patients in Botswana: A Pilot Study

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
  • 2Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
  • 3Division of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of California–San Diego, San Diego
  • 4Department of Oral Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine, Philadelphia
JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150(6):601-607. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.7321
Abstract

Importance  Mobile teledermatology may increase access to care.

Objective  To determine whether mobile teledermatology in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–positive patients in Gaborone, Botswana, was reliable and produced valid assessments compared with face-to-face dermatologic consultations.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Cross-sectional study conducted in outpatient clinics and public inpatient settings in Botswana for 76 HIV-positive patients 18 years and older with a skin or mucosal condition that had not been evaluated by a dermatologist.

Main Outcomes and Measures  We calculated the κ coefficient for diagnosis, diagnostic category, and management for test-retest and interrater reliability. We also determined sensitivity and specificity for each diagnosis.

Results  The κ coefficient for test-retest reliability ranged from 0.47 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.59) to 0.78 (0.67 to 0.88) for the primary diagnosis, 0.29 (0.18 to 0.42) to 0.73 (0.61 to 0.84) for diagnostic category, and 0.17 (−0.01 to 0.36) to 0.54 (0.38 to 0.70) for management. The κ coefficient for interrater reliability ranged from 0.41 (95% CI, 0.31 to 0.52) to 0.51 (0.41 to 0.61) for the primary diagnosis, 0.22 (0.14 to 0.31) to 0.43 (0.34 to 0.53) for diagnostic category, and 0.08 (0.02 to 0.15) to 0.12 (0.01 to 0.23) for management. Sensitivity and specificity for the top 10 diagnoses varied from 0 to 0.88 and 0.84 to 1.00, respectively.

Conclusions and Relevance  Our results suggest that while the use of mobile teledermatology technology in HIV-positive patients in Botswana has significant potential for improving access to care, additional work is needed to improve the reliability and validity of this technology on a larger scale in this population.

×