A narrative review of dermatologic protocols for primary care medical service trips in Latin America and the Caribbean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Skin disorders are prevalent on primary care medical service trips in Latin America and the Caribbean and commonly include scabies, superficial mycoses, and pyoderma. There have been no previous attempts to describe protocols that international volunteer clinicians use in managing these patients. The purpose of this study was to collect North American clinical protocols used by sending organizations in their volunteer operations in Latin America and the Caribbean, summarize the most common pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management strategies, and compare these to published international practice recommendations. METHODS: A systematic web search was used to identify North American medical service trip-sending organizations. Clinical protocols were downloaded from their websites, and organizations were directly contacted to request protocols that were not published online. The protocols obtained were summarized, analyzed thematically, and compared to existing international guidelines. RESULTS: Of 225 organizations contacted, 112 (49.8%) responded, and 31 of these (27.7%) claimed to possess protocols for their trips, of which 20 were obtained and analyzed. Ten (50%) protocols discussed scabies, eight (40%) discussed superficial mycoses, and five (25%) discussed pyoderma. The protocols discussed clinical assessment, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management with variable degrees of accuracy and thoroughness, and with important omissions when compared to international guidelines. None were the product of systematic literature searches, and most were not referenced. CONCLUSIONS: To avoid ineffective treatment and related harms, context-specific clinical guidelines are needed for volunteer clinicians practicing in remote international settings, and such guidelines should be based on best evidence and stakeholder consensus.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".