This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Ernst Epstein, MD
100 S Ellsworth Ave Suite 707 San Mateo, CA 94401

Arch Dermatol. 1996;132(1):91-92.

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

Many recent articles on epiluminescence microscopy (ELM) discuss the value of ELM in diagnosing pigmented lesions. Dermatologists have been urged to incorporate this technique in their daily practice. Most studies on the value of ELM have been performed by persons with special expertise. I am aware of only one article addressing the issue of training; it appeared in the March 1995 issue of the ARCHIVES, and is entitled "Epiluminescence Microscopy: A Useful Tool for the Diagnosis of Pigmented Skin Lesions for Formally Trained Dermatologists."¹ In their article, Binder et al demonstrated a significant difference in the accuracy of ELM evaluations between practicing dermatologists and the group of expert researchers.

Has anyone addressed the significant differences between the instruments used by investigators and those available to the ordinary practitioner? Most studies on ELM have used binocular surface microscopes (operating microscopes) with excellent binocular optics. The instruments available to the dermatologists . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?