Observational studyThe Australasian journal of dermatology2025
Dermoscopy of Scabies: Utility of Polarised and Ultraviolet-Induced Fluorescence Examination in Fair and Dark Skin.
Observational study in The Australasian journal of dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic Value and Limitations of Dermoscopy in Humans and Animals: A Critical Comparative Analysis.Veterinary dermatology · 2026Pooled it
- Dermoscopy in Monitoring Treatment Response in Scabies: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- The Tunnel Window Sign Identifies Active Scabies Infestation: A Validation Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Ultraviolet-Induced Fluorescence Dermoscopy for the Differentiation of Non-Pigmented Malignant and Benign Lesions on the Face.Dermatology and therapy · 2026Article
- Ultraviolet-induced Fluorescence Patterns in Psoriasis: Insights from a Large International Cohort Study.Dermatology practical & conceptual · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionUltraviolet-based dermoscopy may support the recognition of scabies, yet neither accuracy analyses nor data on skin of colour are available. The aim of this multicentric observational retrospective was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of polarised and ultraviolet-induced fluorescence (UVF) dermoscopic examination in both fair and dark skin, also assessing possible differences according to the skin tone.
methodsConsecutive patients with a diagnosis of scabies were eligible. All the images were randomly evaluated by two independent experienced investigators to identify scabietic findings reported in the literature. Interobserver agreement was evaluated for both polarised and UVF dermoscopic pictures through Cohen's kappa coefficient, while Fisher's exact test with p-value set at 0.05 was used for comparative analyses between the two settings.
resultsA total of 97 lesions from 43 patients (21 with fair skin and 22 with dark skin) were included. The comparative analysis highlighted a superiority of UVF dermoscopy to detect the burrow (p = 0.003) and scabietic eggs (p = 0.012) in skin of colour, while polarised dermoscopy was more accurate to show the mite in fair skin (p = 0.042). Additionally, a general higher accuracy of both settings in light phototypes was also found, with a higher prevalence (p < 0.05) of typical scabietic findings (i.e., serpiginous white tract, 'triangle' sign and grey-brown outlines of the burrow for polarised dermoscopy and green dot for UVF dermoscopy) compared to dark skin. Kappa values were 0.87 and 0.83 for polarised and UVF-dermoscopy, respectively.
conclusionsUVF dermoscopy improves the recognition of scabies, though it should be considered complimentary to polarised light dermoscopic examination to increase diagnostic performance.
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.