ArticleSkin appendage disorders2019
Trichoscopy in the Differential Diagnosis of Pseudonits.
Article in Skin appendage disorders, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- UV Dermoscopy as a Diagnostic Tool to Differentiate Between Pediculosis and Piedra Branca.Dermatology practical & conceptual · 2024Article
- Pseudonits or Hair Casts.Dermatology practical & conceptual · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe purpose of the study was to describe the trichoscopic features of pseudonits and to assess the usefulness of trichoscopy in their differential diagnosis.
methodsA retrospective study was performed on those patients seen for the suspicion of head or pubic lice and who underwent trichoscopy with polarized light at ×10 magnification for a more accurate diagnosis. Forty-two patients (28 males/14 females, mean age: 34.5 years, range: 7-59) were evaluated.
resultsIn 30 cases, trichoscopy confirmed the suspicion of head (24 cases) or pubic (6 cases) lice, whereas in 12 cases it allowed for a final diagnosis of seborrheic dermatitis (5 cases), hair casts (3 cases), trichobacteriosis (2 cases), white piedra (1 case), and trichorrhexis nodosa (1 case), by showing different types of pseudonits.
conclusionHair examination using trichoscopy in routine clinical practice may provide useful information for the correct diagnosis, ranging from common head and pubic lice infestations to rarer shaft abnormalities. Differentiating pseudonits from nits is essential to make the correct diagnosis in order to prevent unnecessary treatment, anxiety, and/or embarrassment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.