RT Journal Article
T1 Teledermatology versus Face-to-Face Dermatology: An Analysis of Cost-Effectiveness from Eight Studies from Europe and the United States.
A1 López-Liria, Remedios
A1 Valverde-Martínez, María Ángeles
A1 López-Villegas, Antonio
A1 Bautista-Mesa, Rafael Jesús
A1 Vega-Ramírez, Francisco Antonio
A1 Peiró, Salvador
A1 Leal-Costa, Cesar
K1 cost–benefit analysis
K1 follow-up studies
K1 health-related quality of life
K1 pacemakers
K1 teledermatology
K1 telemedicine
AB (1) Background: The aim of this systematic review was to compare the cost-effectiveness of two follow-up methods (face-to-face and telemedicine) used in dermatology in the last ten years. (2) Methods: A search for articles that included economic analyses was conducted in August 2021 in the databases PubMed, Medline, Scielo and Scopus using the following keywords: "Cost-Benefit Analysis", "Dermatology", "Telemedicine", "Primary Health Care", as well as other search terms and following the PICOS eligibility criteria. (3) Results: Three clinical trials and five observational studies were analyzed, providing information for approximately 16,539 patients (including four cost-minimization or saving analyses, three cost-effectiveness analyses, and one cost-utility analysis) in Europe and the United States. They describe the follow-up procedures in each of the cases and measure and analyze the direct and indirect costs and effectiveness. All the articles indicate that teledermatology lowers costs and proves satisfactory to both patients and professionals. (4) Conclusions: Although it has been found that follow-up via teledermatology can be more efficient than traditional hospital follow-up, more work is needed to establish evaluation protocols and procedures that measure key variables more equally and demonstrate the quality of the evidence of said studies.
YR 2022
FD 2022-02-22
LK http://hdl.handle.net/10668/21034
UL http://hdl.handle.net/10668/21034
LA en
DS RISalud
RD Apr 9, 2025