BACKGROUND: Melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, poses a significant public health challenge worldwide. Early detection is crucial for improved patient outcomes. Non-invasive skin imaging techniques allow for improved diagnostic accuracy; however, their use is often limited due to the need for skilled practitioners trained to interpret images in a standardized fashion. Recent innovations in artificial intelligence (AI)-based techniques for skin lesion image interpretation show potential for the use of AI in the early detection of melanoma. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the current state of AI-based techniques used in combination with non-invasive diagnostic imaging modalities including reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and dermoscopy. We also aimed to determine whether the application of AI-based techniques can lead to improved diagnostic accuracy of melanoma. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted via the Medline/PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases for eligible publications between 2018 and 2022. Screening methods adhered to the 2020 version of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Included studies utilized AI-based algorithms for melanoma detection and directly addressed the review objectives. RESULTS: We retrieved 40 papers amongst the three databases. All studies directly comparing the performance of AI-based techniques with dermatologists reported the superior or equivalent performance of AI-based techniques in improving the detection of melanoma. In studies directly comparing algorithm performance on dermoscopy images to dermatologists, AI-based algorithms achieved a higher ROC (>80%) in the detection of melanoma. In these comparative studies using dermoscopic images, the mean algorithm sensitivity was 83.01% and the mean algorithm specificity was 85.58%. Studies evaluating machine learning in conjunction with OCT boasted accuracy of 95%, while studies evaluating RCM reported a mean accuracy rate of 82.72%. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the robust potential of AI-based techniques to improve diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes through the early identification of melanoma. Further studies are needed to assess the generalizability of these AI-based techniques across different populations and skin types, improve standardization in image processing, and further compare the performance of AI-based techniques with board-certified dermatologists to evaluate clinical applicability.

Objective To evaluate the reporting quality of single-patient (N-of-1) trials and protocols based on the CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 trials (CENT) statement and the standard protocol items: recommendations for interventional trials (SPIRIT) extension and elaboration for N-of-1 trials (SPENT) checklist to examine the factors that influenced reporting quality. Methods Four electronic databases were searched to identify N-of-1 trials and protocols from 2015 to 2020. Quality was assessed by two reviewers. We calculated the overall scores based on binary responses in which "Yes" was scored as 1 (if the item was fully reported), and "No" was scored as 0 (if the item was not clearly reported or not definitely stated). Results A total of 78 publications (55 N-of-1 trials and 23 protocols) were identified. The mean reporting score (SD) of the N-of-1 trials and protocols were 29.24 (0.89) and 29.61 (1.83), respectively. For the items related to outcomes, sample size, allocation concealment protocol, and informed consent materials, the reporting quality was low. Our results showed that the year of publication (t = -0.793, p = 0.872 for the trials and t = 1.352, p = 0.623 for the protocols) and the impact factor of the journal (t = 1.416, p = 0.619 for the trials and t = 0.359, p = 0.667 for the protocols) were not factors associated with better reporting quality. Conclusion With the publication of the CENT 2015 statement and the SPENT 2019 checklist, authors should adhere to the relevant reporting guidelines and improve the reporting quality of N-of-1 trials and protocols.

Objective. To research the literature and examine assessment strategies used in health education that measure reflection levels and to identify assessment strategies for use in pharmacy education. Methods. A simple systematic review using a 5-step approach was employed to locate peer-reviewed articles addressing assessment strategies in health education from the last 20 years. Results. The literature search identified assessment strategies and rubrics used in health education for assessing levels of reflection. There is a significant gap in the literature regarding reflective rubric use in pharmacy education. Conclusion. Two assessment strategies to assess levels of reflection, including a reflective rubric tailored for pharmacy education, are proposed