MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1536798832 · doi:10.1155/2011/698494

Detection of Scabies: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Methods

2011· review· en· W1536798832 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatological diseases and infestations
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScabiesPhysical examinationMedicineDermatologyDiagnostic accuracyMEDLINEDermatoscopyMedical historySurgeryRadiologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study systematically reviewed the accuracy and precision of history, physical examination and tests for diagnosing scabies. Using a structured search strategy, Medline and Embase databases were searched for English and French language articles that included a diagnosis of scabies. Studies comparing history, physical examination and/or any diagnostic tests with the reference standard of microscopic visualization of mites, eggs or fecal elements obtained from skin scrapings or biopsies were included for analysis. History and examination of pruritic dermatoses failed to accurately diagnose scabies infection. The accuracy of dermatoscopy, performed by a trained practitioner, was determined; however, the accuracy of other diagnostic tests could not be calculated from the data in the literature. In the face of such diagnostic inaccuracy, research to identify or develop accurate diagnostic tests for scabies infection is needed and justifiable. BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis of scabies infection is important for patient treatment and for public health control of scabies epidemics. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the accuracy and precision of history, physical examination and tests for diagnosing scabies. METHODS: Using a structured search strategy, Medline and Embase databases were searched for English and French language articles that included a diagnosis of scabies. Studies comparing history, physical examination and/or any diagnostic tests with the reference standard of microscopic visualization of mites, eggs or fecal elements obtained from skin scrapings or biopsies were included for analysis. Data were extracted using standard criteria. RESULTS: History and examination of pruritic dermatoses failed to accurately diagnose scabies infection. Dermatoscopy by a trained practitioner has a positive likelihood ratio of 6.5 (95% CI 4.1 to 10.3) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.1 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.2) for diagnosing scabies. The accuracy of other diagnostic tests could not be calculated from the data in the literature. CONCLUSIONS: In the face of such diagnostic inaccuracy, clinical judgment is still practical in diagnosing scabies. Two tests are used – the burrow ink test and handheld dermatoscopy. The burrow ink test is a simple, rapid, noninvasive test that can be used to screen a large number of patients. Handheld dermatoscopy is an accurate test, but requires special equipment and trained practitioners. Given the morbidity and costs of scabies infection, and that studies to date lack adequate internal and external validity, research to identify or develop accurate diagnostic tests for scabies infection is needed and justifiable.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it