RESUMO
Abstract Objectives: Sialendoscopy is a minimally invasive procedure used to diagnose and treat obstructive salivary gland diseases. Previous studies in the topic have shown mixed results. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sialendoscopy through previous systematic reviews for different outcomes of several diseases. We also aimed to assess studies' methodological quality and heterogeneity. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive systematic literature search of Pubmed, Embase, Lilacs and Cochrane Library. We included systematic reviews and meta-analyses that used sialendoscopy to treat both lithiasic and alithiasic salivary glands diseases. Data extraction included studies' characteristics and results. We assessed studies' methodological quality using the AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2) tool. Results: 13 studies were included in the review, being 9 in adult populations and 4 in pediatric populations. Sialendoscopy proved to be effective at the treatment of different lithiasic and other obstructive diseases, but with important heterogeneity. The technique was also considered highly safe in most studies. However, studies had a critically low quality of evidence. Conclusions: Most studies demonstrated high efficacy and safety of sialendoscopy, but with critically low quality of evidence. We still lack randomized studies in this field, and future systematic reviews on the topic should follow current guidelines to improve conduction and reporting.
RESUMO
Teledermatology has been proving to be of great help for delivering healthcare, especially now, during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. It is crucial to assess how accurate this method can be for evaluating different dermatoses. Such knowledge can contribute to the dermatologists' decision of whether to adhere to teledermatology or not. Our objective was to determine the accuracy of teledermatology in the 10 most frequent skin neoplasms in our population, comparing telediagnosis to histopathological report and in-person dermatologists' diagnosis. A retrospective cohort study was conducted in São Paulo, Brazil, where a store-and-forward teledermatology project was implemented under primary-care attention to triage surgical, more complex, or severe dermatoses. A total of 30,976 patients presenting 55,012 lesions took part in the project. Thirteen teledermatologists who participated in the project had three options to refer the patients: send them directly to biopsy, to the in-person dermatologist, or back to the general physician with the most probable diagnosis and management. In the groups referred to the in-person dermatologist and biopsy, we looked for the 10 most frequent International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems-10 (ICD-10) of skin neoplasms, which resulted in 289 histopathologic reports and 803 in-person dermatologists' diagnosis. We were able to compare the ICD-10 codes filled by teledermatologists, in-person dermatologists, and from histopathological reports. The proportion of complete, partial, and no agreement rates between the in-person dermatologist's, histopathologic report, and the teledermatologist's diagnosis was assessed. We also calculated Cohen's kappa, for complete and complete plus partial agreement. The mean complete agreement rate comparing telediagnosis to histopathological report was 54% (157/289; kappa = 0.087), being the highest for malign lesions; to in-person dermatologists was 61% (487/803; kappa = 0.213), highest for benign lesions. When accuracy of telediagnosis for either malign or benign lesions was evaluated, the agreement rate with histopathology was 70% (kappa = 0.529) and with in-person dermatologist, 81% (kappa = 0.582). This study supports that teledermatology for skin neoplasms has moderate accuracy. This result reassures that it can be a proper option for patient care, especially when the goal is to differentiate benign from malign lesions.