Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:9218392rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0008976lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9218392lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0446516lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9218392lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0597198lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9218392lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1280500lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9218392lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0598285lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9218392lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0179533lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9218392lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0028415lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9218392lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1548161lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9218392lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1654607lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:dateCreated1997-7-25lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:abstractTextThe diagnostic accuracy of realtime teledermatology was measured using two different video cameras. One camera was a relatively low-cost, single-chip device (camera 1), while the other was a more expensive three-chip camera (camera 2). The diagnosis obtained via the videolink was compared with the diagnosis made in person. Sixty-five new patients referred to a dermatology clinic were examined using camera 1 followed by a standard face-to-face consultation. A further 65 patients were examined using camera 2 and the same procedure applied. Seventy-six per cent of conditions were correctly diagnosed by telemedicine using camera 2 compared with 59% using camera 1. A working differential diagnosis was obtained in 12% of cases using camera 2 compared with 17% using camera 1. The percentage of 'no diagnosis', wrong and missed diagnoses was halved using camera 2 compared with camera 1. These results suggest that the performance of camera 2 was superior to that of camera 1 for realtime teledermatology.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:issn1357-633Xlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:authorpubmed-author:MathewsCClld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:authorpubmed-author:WoottonRRlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:authorpubmed-author:CorbettRRlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:authorpubmed-author:SteeleKKlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:authorpubmed-author:EedyD JDJlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:authorpubmed-author:LoaneM AMAlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:authorpubmed-author:GoreH EHElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:authorpubmed-author:BloomerS ESElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:authorpubmed-author:TelfordR WRWlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:volume3 Suppl 1lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:pagination73-5lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:dateRevised2006-11-15lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9218392-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9218392-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9218392-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9218392-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9218392-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9218392-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9218392-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9218392-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9218392-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9218392-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9218392-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9218392-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9218392-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9218392-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9218392-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9218392-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9218392-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:year1997lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:articleTitlePreliminary results from the Northern Ireland arms of the UK Multicentre Teledermatology Trial: effect of camera performance on diagnostic accuracy.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:affiliationInstitute of Telemedicine & Telecare, Queen's University, Belfast, UK.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:publicationTypeClinical Triallld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:publicationTypeResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9218392pubmed:publicationTypeMulticenter Studylld:pubmed