Table 1.

Study demographics: patient and practitioner populations

Study details	Location	Study type	Practitioners				Patients						Control group	Intervention group	Gender of patients (except where indicated) (F/M) (%)	Age of patients (except where indicated) (years), mean (range)
			PCPs	SCPs	PCPs and SCPs	DPCSCCs	Studies with patients from:			Studies using images from:
							Primary care	Secondary care	DPCSCCs	Primary care	Secondary care	DPCSCCs
Dermoscopy papers
Ahmadi et al 27	Maastricht/Limburg, The Netherlands	Case series											None	Patients from 3 primary care practices	F=57.8	54.7 (60–79)
Argenziano et al 23	Barcelona, Spain; Naples, Italy	RCT											Naked eye	Dermoscopy	C: F=62.4 I: F=62.3	C: 40 (2–90) I: 41 (3–94)
Bourne et al 28	Brisbane, Australia	DA study											Clinical assessment and algorithms	BLINCK algorithm	F=52.2	58 (30–60)
Chappuis et al 38	4 regions of France	Survey											None	PCPs in France	GPs: F=42.4	GPs: <30=8 30–50=169 >50=246
Koelink et al 24	Groningen, The Netherlands	RCT											Naked eye	Dermoscopy	C: F=61.6 I: F=68.2	C: 54.7 I: 53.2
Menzies et al 29	USA, Germany and Australia	DA study											Independent clinicians	SolarScan assessment	NR	NR
Menzies et al 14	Perth, Australia	SIT											PCP decision before intervention	Outcome after dermoscopy and SDDI	NR	NR
Morris et al 39	Florida, USA	Survey											None	PCPs	Clinicians: F=41.6	Clinicians: median 40–49 years
Morris et al 40	Florida, USA	Survey											None	Practising physicians	Clinicians: F=34.7	Clinicians: NR
Pagnanelli et al 30	Rome, Italy	DA study		*									Pretraining	Post-training	NR	NR
Rogers et al 31	New York, USA	DA study											Histology/expert opinion	Clinicians using 3 algorithms	F=53.3	Median 31–40 years
Rogers et al 32	New York, USA	DA study											Histology/expert opinion	Clinicians using 3 algorithms	F=53.3	Median 31–40 years
Rosendahl et al 43	Queensland, Australia	SIT	†										Naked eye	Dermoscopy images	F=32.6	57 SD: 17 years
Rosendahl et al 25	Australian SCARD database	Cohort study											Histology diagnosis	PCP decision	NR	NR
Secker et al 44	Leiden, The Netherlands	DA study											PCPs before education	After education	F=51.8	45.2 (28–63)
Westerhoff et al 33	Sydney, Australia	DA study											PCP diagnosis	PCPs ± dermoscopy ± education	NR	NR
Teledermoscopy papers
Börve et al 34	Gothenburg, Sweden	Case–control study											Paper-based referrals	Teledermoscopy referrals	C: F=57.1 I: F=61.4	C: 61 (18–97) I: 54 (18–93)
Ferrándiz et al 26	Andalucia, Spain	RCT											Clinical images	Clinical and dermoscopy images	C: F=52.88 I: F=62.28	C: 57.33 I: 54.96
Grimaldi et al 35	Siena, Italy	DA study											Judgement before dermoscopy	Judgement after dermoscopy	NR	NR
Livingstone and Solomon41	Ruislip, UK	Case series											Expert diagnosis and standard costs	Teledermoscopy referrals	NR	NR
Moreno-Ramirez et al 36	Sevilla, Spain	DA study											Tele dermatology referrals	Same patients + dermoscopy images	F=70.5	38.8 (1–73)
Stratton and Loescher42	Arizona, USA	Survey											None	Nurse practitioners	Nurse practitioners: F=92	Nurse practitioners: 48
van der Heijden et al 37	Amsterdam, The Netherlands	Cohort study											Face-to-face consult ± histology	Teledermoscopy consult (same patients)	F=55	Median 47 years, 6–84 years

Coloured boxes denote that practitioners and patients from these populations were included in the corresponding study

*Minimal dermoscopy experience, although secondary care physicians.

†Practitioner population not specified.

BLINCK, Benign, Lonely, Irregular, Nervous, Change, Known clues; C, control group; DA, diagnostic accuracy; DPCSCC, dedicated primary care skin cancer clinic; F, female; GP, General Practitioner; I, intervention group; M, male; NR, not reported; PCP, primary care physician; RCT, randomised controlled trial; SCARD, Skin Cancer Audit Research Database; SCP, secondary care physician; SD, Standard Deviation; SDDI, short-term sequential digital dermoscopy imaging; SIT, sequential intervention trial.