Abstract
BACKGROUND: The absence of a unified dermatoscopic terminology in the Russian language limits the descriptive capabilities of dermatoscopic findings, which complicates interdisciplinary interaction and reduces the possibilities for dynamic monitoring of patients with skin and adnexal lesions, primarily neoplasms. In 2016, the International Dermoscopy Society proposed a standardized terminology. Its implementation into everyday clinical practice in the Russian Federation required adaptation and expert validation taking into account linguistic features.
AIM: To develop and validate a Russian-language version of the universally accepted dermatoscopic terminology by conducting an expert consensus.
METHODS: The study was conducted in the format of a single-stage expert consensus with elements of quantitative agreement assessment (Delphi method). The experts were dermatovenereologists and oncologists with experience in using dermoscopy in clinical practice.
A standardized questionnaire based on English terms adopted at the 3rd Consensus Conference of the International Dermoscopy Society (2016) was used for the study. It also included corresponding Russian adapted terms, schematic images of dermatoscopic structures, definitions, histopathological correlations and clinical significance, as well as the "agree", "disagree", and "comments" fields.
RESULTS: The study was conducted from December 15, 2025, to February 15, 2026. A total of 67 specialists participated in the expert consensus, including 48 dermatovenerologists (71.6%), 16 oncologists (23.9%), and 3 physicians who reported having both specialties (4.5%). Consensus was defined as agreement of ≥ 70% of experts. A high level of agreement was observed among both oncologists (agreement coefficient 0.84) and dermatovenerologists (0.82). Specialists reporting both specialties demonstrated the highest activity in proposing alternative options (proposal coefficient 0.13). Regarding vascular structures, consensus was reached on all proposed terms with minimal need for adjustments. Alternative terms and comments proposed by experts were subjected to quantitative and qualitative analysis, identifying linguistic and clinical remarks.
CONCLUSION: A terminology in the Russian language has been developed and validated, ensuring unification of the dermatoscopic vocabulary in the Russian Federation. The multidisciplinary approach using the Delphi method enabled achieving high expert consensus on dermatoscopic terms. The obtained results provide a methodological basis for standardizing dermatoscopic diagnosis, developing unified protocols for dermatoscopic examination, and implementing educational programs on dermatoscopy.