Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lousbergh, D
Right arrow Articles by Piérard, G
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lousbergh, D
Right arrow Articles by Piérard, G
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Family Practice Vol. 16, No. 6, 611-615
© Oxford University Press 1999

Diagnosing dermatomycosis in general practice

D Lousbergh, F Buntinx and G Piérarda

Department of General Practice, University of Leuven and
a Department of Dermatopathology, CHU Sart-Tilman University of Liège, Belgium.

Dr D Lousbergh, Academisch Centrum voor Huisartsgeneeskunde, Kapucijnenvoer 33, Blok J, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium.

Abstract

Background. Diagnosing dermatomycosis from a clinical image is not always easy. Microscopy of a potassium hydroxide preparation (KOH-test) and culturing are seldomly used in general practice. Cyanoacrylate surface skin scraping (CSSS) is a new diagnostic tool that may be useful and simple.

Objectives. We aimed to investigate the diagnostic value of signs and symptoms, the KOH-test and the CSSS, in patients with erythematosquamous skin lesions, using the culture as the gold standard. Our goal is to formulate an optimal algorithm for the diagnosis of mycosis, based on one or more of these tests and including both optimal accuracy and costs.

Methods. Scales from 148 consecutive general practice patients were tested using a KOH-test, CSSS and culture. Clinical data were collected using a questionnaire.

Results. Twenty-six (18%) positive fungal cultures were identified. The sensitivity of the clinical diagnosis was 81% and its specificity 45%; for the KOH-test, these figures were 12 and 93% respectively; and for the CSSS, 62 and 88%, respectively. The positive predictive value of the clinical diagnosis was 24% and the negative predictive value 92%; for the KOH-test these figures were 25 and 83%, respectively, and for the CSSS, 52 and 92%, respectively. Determining CSSS in all patients proved to be the most accurate policy (accuracy = 83%). The likelihood ratio of CSSS in all patients was 5.17 for a positive test result and 0.43 for a negative test result. An approach in which CSSS is obtained in only those patients whom the physician considers by clinical examination to have dermatomycosis, with no testing in other patients, results in positive and negative likelihood ratios of 4.69 and 0.56, respectively. Such a policy would result in an overall sensitivity of 50%, a specificity of 89%, a positive predictive value of 50% and a negative predictive value of 89%.

Discussion. The clinical picture of dermatomycosis is not very reliable. The combination of a clinical judgement if this is negative and an additional CSSS in the case of a positive clinical judgement provides us with the best cost–benefit ratio, if both diagnostic accuracy and logistic considerations are taken into consideration.

Keywords. Cyanoacrylate surface skin scraping, dermatomycosis, potassium hydroxide test.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Arch DermatolHome page
C. S.-H. Lim and S.-L. Lim
New Contrast Stain for the Rapid Diagnosis of Dermatophytic and Candidal Dermatomycoses
Arch Dermatol, September 1, 2008; 144(9): 1228 - 1229.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.