This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Radiologic Imaging  • Radiologic Imaging, Other  • Dermatologic Disorders, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In a recent editorial, Marghoob and Halpern¹ expounded on why new imaging modalities such as confocal laser scanning reflectance (CLSR) microscopy are useful and important. They note that many advances in imaging technology (such as computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) "were initially met with significant resistance and skepticism."^1(p212) They speculate that this is due to the high costs associated with these procedures and "the innate resistance of clinicians to change."^1(p212)

I believe the reluctance of American dermatologists to embrace these new visual technologies (even relatively simple ones such as dermoscopy) is due to 3 factors. The first is that we have been able to function without them for years. Many dermatologists are quite confident in their diagnostic abilities and do not perceive a need to incorporate fancy new devices to help them in this regard. (This is in direct contradistinction to new therapies, which are often uncritically embraced because . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Lawrence M. Lieblich, MD

RELATED ARTICLE

Confocal Examination of Untreated Fresh Specimens From Basal Cell Carcinoma: Implications for Microscopically Guided Surgery
Armin Gerger, Michael Horn, Silvia Koller, Wolfgang Weger, Cesare Massone, Bernd Leinweber, Helmut Kerl, and Josef Smolle
Arch Dermatol. 2005;141(10):1269-1274.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT