Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33763705›Full record

ReviewTransactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene2022

Laboratory-based diagnosis of scabies: a review of the current status.

Emmanuel Edwar Siddig, Roderick Hay

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Scabies.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2024
    Review
  11. Prevalence ofIJID regions · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Emmanuel Edwar SiddigNile University, Faculty of Medicine, Khartoum, Sudan.
Roderick HayKings College London, Guys Campus, London SE1 9RT,UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5835-1167
Erasmus MC · NLKing's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scabies is a neglected tropical disease (NTD) of the skin that is caused by the mite Sarcoptes scabiei. It is considered to be an important public health problem in many regions. The disease is at its most prevalent in low-resource countries where there are overcrowded living conditions coupled with poor hygiene. In some regions, mass drug administration using ivermectin is a key population-based approach to the control of scabies. Before starting a patient on specific treatment, confirming the diagnosis by accurate and rapid identification of the organism is critical. Different laboratory-based techniques for scabies have been developed in the last few decades. These include direct microscopy and histopathology. More recently, serological testing, dermoscopy and different molecular techniques have been developed as diagnostic methods for scabies. To date, none of these, apart from microscopy and dermoscopy, has been translated into routine clinical laboratory practice. A simple point-of-care or laboratory test would provide a rapid and confirmed diagnosis and early institution of effective treatment. In this review we present an update on the laboratory techniques currently in use for the identification of scabies.

Indexed as

ScabiesAnimalsHumansIvermectinNeglected DiseasesSarcoptes scabieiSkinIvermectindirect microscopyhistopathologyLAMPmolecular diagnosisscabiesserology

Identifiers

PMID33763705
PMCPMC8776561
OpenAlexW3136813515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.