In this paper by Freeman and colleagues (BMJ 2020;368:m127, doi:10.1136/bmj.m127, published 10 February 2020), the app named “SkinScan” in the 2014 Chadwick et al study is a predecessor of the SkinVision app and not related to the currently available CE marked TeleSkin “skinScan” app as is implied. Thus the abstract should state: “No published peer reviewed study was found evaluating the TeleSkin skinScan app. SkinVision was evaluated in three studies (n=267, 66 malignant or premalignant lesions)”. The results should state: “No published peer reviewed study was found evaluating the TeleSkin skinScan app. The SkinVision predecessor app SkinScan was evaluated in a single study of only 15 lesions (five melanomas).23” The skinScan row in table 1 should report high risk as “Atypical” and the first footnote in table 1 should state: “*This is the TeleSkin skinScan app and not the SkinScan app evaluated by Chadwick and colleagues.23 No published peer reviewed study was found evaluating the TeleSkin skinScan app.” The text describing table 1 should state that two apps, skinScan and SpotMole, do not provide a moderate risk result, that MelApp does not recommend an action following a high risk result, and that only Mole Detective recommends monitoring after a moderate risk result. Table 2 and figure 2 should state: “The Chadwick 2014 SkinScan app is a predecessor of SkinVision and not related to the CE marked TeleSkin skinScan app.”
Under the heading “Misleading regulation” in the linked editorial by Morley and colleagues (BMJ 2020;368:m428, doi:10.1136/bmj.m428, published 10 February 2020), the second sentence should state: “Freeman and colleagues found no peer reviewed, published studies evaluating the Teleskin skinScan app.”
The research paper and linked editorial will be updated in due course.