Walter Birke, Heukelbach Jörg, Fengler Gernot, Worth Christine, Hengge Ulrich, Feldmeier Hermann
Institute of Microbiology and Hygiene, Charité Universität Berlin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin, Germany.
Arch Dermatol. 2011 Apr;147(4):468-73. doi: 10.1001/archdermatol.2011.51.
BACKGROUND: Scabies is a parasitic skin disease endemic in resource-poor communities in low-income countries. The best ways to diagnose scabies in this setting have not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic properties of dermoscopy, the microscopic examination of a skin scraping, and the adhesive tape test in 125 patients with a presumptive diagnosis of scabies. DESIGN: A prospective evaluator-blinded study. RESULTS: The sensitivity of dermoscopy was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-0.94) and significantly higher than the sensitivity of the adhesive tape test (0.68; 95% CI, 0.52-0.81; P < .001). The sensitivity of skin scraping was low (0.46; 95% CI, 0.31-0.62). The specificity of dermoscopy was 0.46 (95% CI, 0.34-0.58); by definition, it was 1.00 for skin scraping and the adhesive tape test. The negative predictive value was identical for dermoscopy and the adhesive tape test (0.85; 95% CI, 0.69-0.94 and 0.75-0.91, respectively) but significantly lower for skin scraping (0.77; 95% CI, 0.67-0.84; P < .001). The sensitivity of dermoscopy increased with the severity of the disease, whereas the sensitivity of the adhesive tape test did not depend on this characteristic. Limitations Because of active case finding, the duration of the infestation was short and the severity of disease was rather low in most patients. The rather short duration of the infestation might have affected the diagnostic properties of each test in different ways. CONCLUSIONS: When trained personnel are available, dermoscopy is a valid tool for diagnosing scabies in a resource-poor setting. The adhesive tape test is easy to perform and, because it has high positive and negative predictive values, the test is ideal for screening purposes. Skin scraping cannot be recommended as a diagnostic tool in this setting.
背景:疥疮是一种寄生虫性皮肤病,在低收入国家的资源匮乏社区中流行。尚未对在这种情况下诊断疥疮的最佳方法进行研究。 目的:比较皮肤镜检查、皮肤刮片显微镜检查和胶带试验对125例疑似疥疮患者的诊断性能。 设计:一项前瞻性评估者盲法研究。 结果:皮肤镜检查的敏感性为0.83(95%置信区间[CI],0.70 - 0.94),显著高于胶带试验的敏感性(0.68;95%CI,0.52 - 0.81;P <.001)。皮肤刮片的敏感性较低(0.46;95%CI,0.31 - 0.62)。皮肤镜检查的特异性为0.46(95%CI,0.34 - 0.58);根据定义,皮肤刮片和胶带试验的特异性为1.00。皮肤镜检查和胶带试验的阴性预测值相同(分别为0.85;95%CI,0.69 - 0.94和0.75 - 0.91),但皮肤刮片的阴性预测值显著较低(0.77;95%CI,0.67 - 0.84;P <.001)。皮肤镜检查的敏感性随疾病严重程度增加,而胶带试验的敏感性不取决于此特征。局限性由于主动病例发现,大多数患者的感染持续时间较短且疾病严重程度较低。感染持续时间较短可能以不同方式影响了每种检测的诊断性能。 结论:当有经过培训的人员时,皮肤镜检查是在资源匮乏环境中诊断疥疮的有效工具。胶带试验易于操作,并且由于其具有较高的阳性和阴性预测值,该试验非常适合用于筛查目的。在这种情况下,不推荐将皮肤刮片作为诊断工具。
N Engl J Med. 2006-4-20
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007-1
Acta Dermatovenerol Alp Pannonica Adriat. 2018-6
Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2014-12
Gac Med Mex. 2006
J Fam Pract. 2007-7
Dermatol Pract Concept. 2025-1-30
Indian Dermatol Online J. 2024-11-26
Parasitol Res. 2024-7-24