You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 145 No. 3, March 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Evidence-Based Dermatology: Study
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (1)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Dermatology
 •Dermatologic Disorders
 •Pediatrics
 •Pediatrics, Other
 •Physical Examination
 •Diagnosis
 •Dermatologic Disorders, Other
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Accuracy of Diagnosis of Pediculosis Capitis

Visual Inspection vs Wet Combing

Claudia Jahnke, MD; Eline Bauer, MD; Ulrich R. Hengge, MD, MBA; Hermann Feldmeier, MD, PhD

Arch Dermatol. 2009;145(3):309-313.

Objective  To determine the diagnostic accuracy of visual inspection and wet combing in pediculosis capitis (head lice infestation). Visual inspection of 5 predilection sites (temples, behind the ears, and neck) was performed first, followed by wet combing of hair moistened with conditioner. Presence of mobile stages was defined as active infestation, presence of nits alone as historic infestation.

Design  Observer-blinded comparison of 2 diagnostic methods.

Setting  Five primary schools in which head lice infestation was epidemic.

Participants  A total of 304 students aged 6 to 12 years.

Main Outcome Measures  Presence of nymph, adults, and nits; sensitivity, predictive value, and accuracy of both methods.

Results  Visual inspection underestimated the true prevalence of active infestation by a factor of 3.5. The sensitivity of wet combing in diagnosing active infestation was significantly higher than of visual inspection (90.5% vs 28.6%; P < .001). The accuracy of the former method was 99.3% and that of the latter method, 95%. In contrast, visual inspection had a higher sensitivity for the diagnosis of historic infestation (86.1% vs 68.4%; P < .001).

Conclusions  Wet combing is a very accurate method to diagnose active head lice infestation. Visual inspection is the method of choice, if one aims to determine the frequency of carriers of eggs or nits.


Author Affiliations: Unit of Child and Adolescent Health, City Health Department, Braunschweig, Germany (Dr Jahnke); Institute of Microbiology und Hygiene, Charité University Medicine, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin, Germany (Drs Bauer and Feldmeier); and Department of Dermatology, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Germany (Dr Hengge).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Visual Inspection vs. Wet Combing for Detecting Lice Infection
JWatch Pediatrics 2009;2009:5-5.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2009 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.