ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2019
The diagnosis of scabies by non-expert examiners: A study of diagnostic accuracy.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- One versus two doses of ivermectin-based mass drug administration for the control of scabies: A cluster randomised non-inferiority trial.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2023Trial
- Community control strategies for scabies: A cluster randomised noninferiority trial.PLoS medicine · 2021Trial
- Scabies Diagnosis: A Narrative Review of Diagnostic Methods, Clinical Misdiagnosis, and Emerging Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Assessment of scabies diagnosis and the impact of MDA for onchocerciasis on the burden of scabies in an endemic community in Ghana.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Prevalence of scabies and bacterial skin infection in French Polynesia: A cross-sectional community survey.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Article
- The Incidence of Scabies in Far North Queensland, Tropical Australia: Implications for Local Clinical Practice and Public Health Strategies.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Article
- Molecular Methods Enhance the Detection of Pyoderma-Related Streptococcus pyogenes and emm-Type Distribution in Children.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Training of Field-Workers for Rapid Assessment of Scabies Prevalence: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study in Mozambique.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2024Article
- Scabies.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2024Review
- Ivermectin-Based Mass Drug Administration for Scabies in Northern India: A Single-Arm Community Intervention Trial.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Prevalence and associated risk factors of scabies and impetigo: A cross-sectional study in Tutume district, Botswana.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Article
- Scabies prevalence after ivermectin-based mass drug administration for lymphatic filariasis, Samoa 2018-2019.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2023Article
- Article
- Diagnostics to support the control of scabies-Development of two target product profiles.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2022Article
- Health-related quality of life impact of scabies in the Solomon Islands.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2022Article
- Estimation of scabies prevalence using simplified criteria and mapping procedures in three Pacific and southeast Asian countries.BMC public health · 2021Article
- A framework for scabies control.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2021Article
- Defining the need for public health control of scabies in Solomon Islands.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2021Article
- Paediatrics: how to manage scabies.Drugs in context · 2021Review
- The prevalence of scabies in Monrovia, Liberia: A population-based survey.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 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
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough scabies is estimated to be one of the most common skin conditions globally, prevalence data is not available in most settings. Disease mapping is required to develop and monitor successful control programs. Non-expert health workers are likely to play an important role in scabies mapping activities in endemic settings. METHODOLOGY: Four non-expert health workers were trained in the diagnosis of scabies and impetigo. The health worker diagnosis was compared to a reference consensus diagnosis of two doctors experienced in diagnosis. The study was conducted in a primary school in Gizo, Solomon Islands, in August 2018. The six examiners consecutively assessed school students, blinded to each other's findings. Training and diagnostic procedures followed criteria for scabies diagnosis established by the International Alliance for the Control of Scabies in 2018. PRINCIPAL
findingsAmongst the 171 students who underwent clinical assessment the prevalence of scabies and impetigo according to the reference standard was 55% and 45% respectively. Sensitivity of the non-expert health workers' diagnosis compared to the reference standard was 55.3% for scabies (95% confidence interval [CI], 50.1-60.4) with a specificity of 89.9% (95% CI 86-93.1) and 52.6% for impetigo (95% CI 46.9-58.3) with a specificity 97.8% (95% CI 95.7-99). Sensitivity for moderate to severe scabies was 93.5% (95% CI 86.3-97.6) with a specificity of 74% (95% CI 70.2-77.5).
conclusionsFollowing brief training, the diagnostic accuracy of non-expert health workers for scabies and impetigo was promising, especially for moderate to severe disease. Modifications to training and processes are recommended to further improve accuracy. The diagnosis by non-expert health workers may be acceptable for scabies and impetigo mapping in endemic areas.
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.