A community-based validation of the International Alliance for the Control of Scabies Consensus Criteria by expert and non-expert examiners in Liberia.
Journal
PLoS neglected tropical diseases
ISSN: 1935-2735
Titre abrégé: PLoS Negl Trop Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101291488
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2020
10 2020
Historique:
received:
28
05
2020
accepted:
14
08
2020
revised:
11
12
2020
pubmed:
6
10
2020
medline:
8
1
2021
entrez:
5
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The International Alliance for the Control of Scabies (IACS) recently published expert consensus criteria for scabies diagnosis. Formal validation of these criteria is needed to guide implementation. We conducted a study to provide detailed description of the morphology and distribution of scabies lesions as assessed by dermatologists and validate the IACS criteria for diagnosis by both expert and non-expert examiners. Participants from a community in Monrovia, Liberia, were independently assessed by two dermatologists and six non-expert examiners. Lesion morphology and distribution were documented based on the dermatologist examination. Diagnoses were classified by IACS criteria and the sensitivity and specificity of non-expert examiner assessments calculated. Papules were the most common lesions (97.8%). Burrows were found in just under half (46.7%) and dermatoscopy was positive in a minority (13.3%). Scabies lesions were found in all body regions but more than 90% of patients could have been diagnosed by an examination of only the limbs. Severity of itch was associated with lesion number (p = 0.003). The sensitivity of non-expert examiners to detect typical scabies ranged between 69-83% and specificity 70-96%. The sensitivity of non-expert examiners was higher in more extensive disease (78-94%). The IACS criteria proved a valid tool for scabies diagnosis. For the purposes of implementation papules and burrows represent truly 'typical' scabies lesions. Non-expert examiners are able to diagnose scabies with a high degree of accuracy, demonstrating they could form a key component in population-level control strategies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The International Alliance for the Control of Scabies (IACS) recently published expert consensus criteria for scabies diagnosis. Formal validation of these criteria is needed to guide implementation. We conducted a study to provide detailed description of the morphology and distribution of scabies lesions as assessed by dermatologists and validate the IACS criteria for diagnosis by both expert and non-expert examiners.
METHODS
Participants from a community in Monrovia, Liberia, were independently assessed by two dermatologists and six non-expert examiners. Lesion morphology and distribution were documented based on the dermatologist examination. Diagnoses were classified by IACS criteria and the sensitivity and specificity of non-expert examiner assessments calculated.
RESULTS
Papules were the most common lesions (97.8%). Burrows were found in just under half (46.7%) and dermatoscopy was positive in a minority (13.3%). Scabies lesions were found in all body regions but more than 90% of patients could have been diagnosed by an examination of only the limbs. Severity of itch was associated with lesion number (p = 0.003). The sensitivity of non-expert examiners to detect typical scabies ranged between 69-83% and specificity 70-96%. The sensitivity of non-expert examiners was higher in more extensive disease (78-94%).
CONCLUSIONS
The IACS criteria proved a valid tool for scabies diagnosis. For the purposes of implementation papules and burrows represent truly 'typical' scabies lesions. Non-expert examiners are able to diagnose scabies with a high degree of accuracy, demonstrating they could form a key component in population-level control strategies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33017426
doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008717
pii: PNTD-D-20-00950
pmc: PMC7732067
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0008717Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2016 Jun 27;10(6):e0004803
pubmed: 27348119
Bull World Health Organ. 2005 Dec;83(12):935-41
pubmed: 16462986
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 May 24;12(5):e0006549
pubmed: 29795566
Lancet. 2019 Jul 6;394(10192):81-92
pubmed: 31178154
BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Sep 13;19(1):803
pubmed: 31519153
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019 Aug 19;13(8):e0007635
pubmed: 31425513
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018 Dec 27;12(12):e0006996
pubmed: 30589906
Bull World Health Organ. 2009 Mar;87(3):173-9
pubmed: 19377712
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2005 Jan;99(1):39-47
pubmed: 15550260
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2013 Aug 08;7(8):e2167
pubmed: 23951369
Br J Dermatol. 2020 Nov;183(5):808-820
pubmed: 32034956
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2015 Mar 04;9(3):e0003452
pubmed: 25738499
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2019 Oct 14;13(10):e0007801
pubmed: 31609963
Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Aug;18(8):894-902
pubmed: 30068499