Table 2: Table for exclusion of studies for not meeting eligibility criteria.

1 Yderstraede, et al. [13] Study design: Editorial comment
2 Wiseman, et al. [14] Study design: Survey of patient's willingness to adopt a smartphone-based system
3 Dobke, et al. [15] Study design: Survey
4 Lazzarini, et al. [11] Study design: Survey
5 Salcido [16] Study design: Editorial comment
6 Wilkins, et al. [12] Study design: Descriptive
7 King [17] Study design: A case study
8 Litzinger, et al. [18] Study design: A case study and survey
9 Kanthraj [19] Study design: Traditional review
10 Weber, et al. [20] Study design: Traditional review
11 Hammett, et al. [21] Study design: Traditional review
12 Lowery, et al. [22] Study design: A case report
13 Clemensen, et al. [23] Study design: Traditional review
14 Broder, et al. [24] Study design: Traditional review
15 Villar Rojas, et al. [25] Study design: A case study
16 Foltynski, et al. [26] Study design: Traditional review
17 Jones, et al. [27] Study design: Traditional review
18 Kobza, et al. [28] Study design: Traditional review
19 Salles, et al. [29] Study design: Traditional review
20 Mathewson, et al. [30] Study design: A case study
21 Dobke, et al. [10] Study design: Case series
22 Jelnes [31] Study design: Traditional review
23 Ong [32] Study design: Traditional review
24 Ablaza, et al. [33] Study design: Traditional review
25 Chanussot-Deprez, et al. [34] Study design: Traditional review
26 Chanussot-Deprez, et al. [35] Study design: Traditional review
27 Samad, et al. [36] Study design: Traditional review
28 Sarhan, et al. [37] Study design: Retrospective review
29 Visco, et al. [38] Study design: Case study
30 Stern, et al. [39] Study design: Mixed methods study
31 Bowns, et al. [40] Population: Malignant melanoma or squamous cell carcinoma
32 De'Ath, et al. [41] Population: Patients with CXR and ECG
33 Williams [42] Intervention: Testing feasibility of new system
34 Larsen, et al. [43] Intervention: Testing feasibility of new system
35 Laflamme, et al. [44] Outcome: Evaluation of fact-to-face and videoconferencing encounters
36 Kim, et al. [45] Outcome: Comparing accuracy of assessment and evaluation
37 Terris, et al. [46] Outcome: Comparing accuracy of wound image
38 Van Dillen, et al. [47] Outcome: Comparing accuracy of wound image
39 Chen, et al. [48] Outcome: Comparing accuracy of assessment
40 Dobke, et al. [15] Outcome: Satisfaction and decisional conflict scale score
41 Houghton, et al. [49] Outcome: Comparing accuracy of assessment
42 Bowling, et al. [50] Outcome: Comparing accuracy of assessment
43 Gardner, et al. [51] Outcome: Comparing accuracy of assessment
44 Debray, et al. [52] Outcome: Comparing accuracy of assessment
45 Hofmann-Wellenhof, et al. [53] Outcome: Comparing accuracy of assessment
46 Ratliff, et al. [54] Outcome: Evaluate cost saving and quality of care
47 Halstead, et al. [55] Outcomes: Comparing accuracy between tele and in-person assessment
48 Saffle, et al. [56] Outcome: Improve resource utilization
49 Clegg, et al. [57] Outcome: Cost saving
50 Rasmussen, et al. [58] Outcome: Comparing accuracy between tele and in-person assessment
51 Braun, et al. [59] Outcome: Feasibility
52 Clemensen, et al. [23] Outcome: Feasibility & cost
53 Rintala, et al. [60] Outcome: Acceptability
54 Rees, et al. [61] Outcome: Use of service (acceptability) and finacial outcome
55 Lewis, et al. [62] Outcome: Tele service utilization, providers' satisfaction
56 Wirthlin [63] Outcome: Feasibility
57 Johnson-Mekota, et al. [64] Outcome: Patients' and providers' satisfaction
58 Chan, et al. [65] Outcome: Using scoring scale
59 Hill, et al. 2009 [66] Outcome: Comparing accuracy of assessment
60 Salmhofer, et al. [67] Outcome: Comparing accuracy of assessment