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?

Klaus Wolff, MD, FRCP
Department of Dermatology Vienna General Hospital Währinger Gürtel 18-20 A-1090 Vienna, Austria

Arch Dermatol. 1996;132(1):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.

We appreciate Epstein's careful comments on the gap between research and practice in ELM, but we are more concerned with the aspect of training and the experience in using this technique than the type of instrumentation used. No one has so far addressed the differences between the instruments used by investigators and those available to practitioners in a formal study, but since we are highly familiar with both we are reasonably sure that there is no real difference in the diagnostic accuracy obtained with either. In our institution, hand-held devices (such as the Delta 10 Dermatoscope and the Episcope) are routinely used in our daily work in the outpatient clinic, whereas binocular operating microscopes are mainly employed by clinics for selected lesions that need documentation. Although we have not performed a formal study comparing the two types of instruments, it is the consensus in our group that, as far as . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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