Study author Other target conditions reported	Study type Country Setting	Inclusion criteria	Index tests (algorithm) Diagnostic approach	Threshold	Observer qualifications (number) Experience	Reference standard Final diagnoses Prevalence (any skin cancer)	Exclusions Comments (marked *)
In‐person evaluations
Argenziano 2006	RCT Italy, Spain Primary NR/85	Patients asking for screening or exhibiting ≥ 1 skin tumours as seen during routine physical examination (patient‐finding screening). Participating PCPs randomised to either visual inspection alone or visual inspection + dermoscopy; only excised lesions can be included for each arm.	VI (ABCD) Dermoscopy (3‐point checklist) In‐person (single observer)	Subjective impression; diagnosis of malignancy	GPs (n = 37) All trained in ABCD rule	Histology MEL 6 BCC 37; SCC 10 Benign 32 53/85; 62%	*Only those patients who were considered to have lesions suggestive of skin cancer had histology and could be included; rest had expert diagnosis (making full dataset ineligible for this review)
Durdu 2011 Invasive melanoma or atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants	WPC P‐CS Secondary Turkey 176/200	PSL that could not be diagnosed with only dermatologic physical examination; 2x2 included for melanocytic subset	Dermoscopy (ABCD; nonmelanocytic excluded first) (Also evaluated exfoliative cytology) In‐person	NR	Dermatologist (n = 1; exp NR) Single observer	Histology MEL: 10; BCC: 34; other malignant 2 SK 24; BN 100; DF 12; warts 16; dirt 1; other 1 10/200; 5%	‐
Soyer 2004	NC R‐CS Specialist unit Italy 225/231	Lesions at pigmented lesion clinic considered by experienced dermatologists to merit excision on clinical grounds	Dermoscopy (no algorithm) In‐person	NR	Dermatologist (n = 1; exp High)* Single	Histology MEL: 68; BCC 9 'Benign' 154 77/154; 33%	*Also reports data for 6 inexperienced observers interpretation of the acquired dermoscopic images; data excluded as includes 3 medical students
Stanganelli 2000 Invasive melanoma or atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants	WPC R‐CS Italy Specialist clinic NR/3372	PSL referred by dermatologists and general practitioners either for pre‐surgical assessment or consultation	VI (ABCD) Dermoscopy (no algorithm) In person (single)	NR Subjective impression	NR (assumed dermatologist ‐ described as one of the co‐authors; n = 1)	Histology/registry FU MEL 55 BCC 43; benign 3274 98/3372; 3%	NR
Image‐based evaluations
Carli 2002b Invasive melanoma or atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants Any	WPC R‐CS Italy Secondary NR/57	Clinically suspicious or equivocal PSL undergoing excision for diagnostic purposes; all ≤ 14 mm diameter	1. VI (NR) 2. Dermoscopy (NR) Image‐based (blinded)	NR	Dermatologists (n = 2) High exp ('with experience in the field of '); consensus of 2	Histology MM 6, MiS 5 BCC 10 BN 31, SK 1; other 4 11/57; 19%	4 ‘not evaluables’ excluded (NB these differ between clinical images and dermoscopic images (1 MM excluded from VI analysis)
Lorentzen 2008 Invasive melanoma	WPC NR‐CS Specialist clinic Denmark 119/119	Patients referred to the specialist naevus clinic; compared classic dermoscopy to acrylic globe magnifier	Dermoscopy (Kenet risk stratification) Image‐based (blinded)	NR	Dermatologist (n = NR) Average	Histology MM 24; BCC 13 BN 69; mild/moderate dysplasia 2; SK 9; other 2 24/119; 20%	1 DF
Rosendahl 2011 Invasive melanoma or atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants	WPC‐algorithms R‐CS Australia Primary 389/463	PSL submitted for histology from the primary care skin cancer practice of 1 author	1. VI (no algorithm) 2. Dermoscopy (pattern; Chaos and Clues)	1. Subjective impression 2. NR; both characteristics present	Dermatologist (n = 1) High exp (confirmed by author); single obs	Histology MM 9; MiS 20 BCC 72; SCC 5 BN 217; BD 18; AK 14*; BNM 140 *considered malignant by study authors 29/463; 6%	3 poor‐quality images excluded
Stanganelli 1998a Invasive melanoma or atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants Any	WPC R‐CS Italy Training images Italy NR/30	PSL images selected from computerised files of the skin cancer clinic	1. VI (no algorithm) 2. Dermoscopy (no algorithm) Image‐based (clinical image)	NR; clinical diagnosis	Dermatologists (n = 20) Exp NR (“experience in ELM but (with) no formal training”) Average result	Histology MEL 10 BCC 4 BN 10, SK 3, other 3 10/30; 33%	NR BCC results not disaggregated
Zalaudek 2006 Invasive melanoma or atypical intraepidermal melanocytic variants	NC R‐CS Specialist clinic Italy NR/165	Random sample of excised, equivocal and nonequivocal, PSL and non‐PSLs with melanin or haemoglobin pigmentation in all or part of the lesion	Dermoscopy (3PCL) Image‐based (age, site, gender)	≥ 2 characteristics present	Mixed (n = 150; exp NR) Average result	Histology Full sample: MM 18; MiS 11 BCC: 18 79 BN; 26 SK; 8 vascular; 3 DF 26/150; 17%	15 used for training purposes 5 BCC moved from FP to TN
3PCL: three‐point checklist; AK: actinic keratosis; alg: algorithm; BD: Bowen’s disease; BCC: basal cell carcinoma; BN: benign naevi; BPC: between person comparison (of tests);CAD: computer‐assisted diagnosis; CCS: case‐control study; CS: case series; cSCC: cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma; DF: dermatofibroma; ELM: epiluminescence microscopy; exp: experience; FP: false positive; FU: follow‐up; LS: lentigo simplex; MiS: melanoma in situ (or lentigo maligna); MM: malignant melanoma; NC: non‐comparative; NR: not reported; Obs: observer; P: prospective; PCP: primary care provider; PLC: pigmented lesion clinic; PSL: pigmented skin lesion; R: retrospective; RCM: reflectance confocal microscopy; SK: seborrhoeic keratosis; SN: Spitz naevi; TN: true negative; VI: visual inspection; WPC: within person comparison (of tests)