Technique standards for skin lesion imaging: a delphi consensus statement

Katragadda, Chinmayee, Finnane, Anna, Soyer, H. Peter, Marghoob, Ashfaq A., Halpern, Allan, Malvehy, Josep, Kittler, Harald, Hofmann-Wellenhof, Rainer, Da Silva, Dennis, Abraham, Ivo and Curiel-Lewandrowski, Clara (2017) Technique standards for skin lesion imaging: a delphi consensus statement. JAMA Dermatology, 153 2: 207-213. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.3949

Author Katragadda, Chinmayee
Finnane, Anna
Soyer, H. Peter
Marghoob, Ashfaq A.
Halpern, Allan
Malvehy, Josep
Kittler, Harald
Hofmann-Wellenhof, Rainer
Da Silva, Dennis
Abraham, Ivo
Curiel-Lewandrowski, Clara
Title Technique standards for skin lesion imaging: a delphi consensus statement
Journal name JAMA Dermatology   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 2168-6068
Publication date 2017-02-01
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.3949
Open Access Status Not yet assessed
Volume 153
Issue 2
Start page 207
End page 213
Total pages 7
Place of publication Chicago, IL, United States
Publisher American Medical Association
Collection year 2018
Language eng
Formatted abstract
Importance: 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.
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: HERDC Pre-Audit
UQ Diamantina Institute Publications
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 1 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 1 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 28 Mar 2017, 00:20:19 EST by Web Cron on behalf of Learning and Research Services (UQ Library)