Accuracy of Diagnosis of Pediculosis Capitis: Visual Inspection vs Wet Combing | Dermatology | JAMA Dermatology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.239.150.57. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Feldmeier  H Pediculosis capitis: die wichtigste Parasitose des Kindesalters.  Kinder- und Jugendmedizin 2006;6249- 259Google Scholar
2.
Pollack  RJKiszewski  AESpielman  A Overdiagnosis and consequent mismanagement of head louse infestations in North America.  Pediatr Infect Dis J 2000;19 (8) 689- 693PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Balcioglu  CBurgess  IFLimoncu  ME Plastic detection comb better than visual screening for diagnosis of head louse infestation.  Epidemiol Infect 2008;136 (10) 1425- 1431PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Mumcuoglu  KYFriger  MIoffe-Uspensky  IBen-Ishai  FMiller  J Louse comb versus direct visual examination for the diagnosis of head louse infestations.  Pediatr Dermatol 2001;18 (1) 9- 12PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Feldmeier  H Diagnosis.  In: Jordan  P, Webbe  G, Sturrock  RF, eds.  Human Schistosomiasis. Wallingford, England: CABI Publishing; 1993Google Scholar
6.
Speare  RThomas  GCahill  C Head lice are not found on floors in primary school classrooms.  Aust N Z J Public Health 2002;26 (3) 208- 211PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
De Maeseneer  JBlokland  IWillems  SVander Stichele  RMeersschaut  F Wet combing versus traditional scalp inspection to detect head lice in schoolchildren: observational study.  BMJ 2000;321 (7270) 1187- 1188PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Nash  B Treating head lice.  BMJ 2003;326 (7401) 1256- 1257PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
 Kopflausbefall (Pediculosis capitis): RKI-Ratgeber Infektionskrankheiten: Merkblätter für Ärzte.  Robert-Koch-Institut Web page. www.rki.de/cln_048/nn_468404/DE/Content/Infekt/EpidBull/Merkblaetter/Ratgeber__Mbl__Kopflausbefall.html. Accessed September 1, 2008
10.
Petrie  ASabin  S Medical Statistics at a Glance.  Oxford, England: Blackwell Science; 2000
11.
Roberts  RJ Clinical practice: head lice.  N Engl J Med 2002;346 (21) 1645- 1650PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Burgess  IF Human lice and their control.  Annu Rev Entomol 2004;49457- 481PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Hamm  H Milben, Läuse und Flöhe: Epizoonosen im Kindesalter.  Hautarzt 2005;56 (10) 915- 924PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Williams  LKReichart  AMacKenzie  WRHightower  AWBlake  PA Lice, nits and school policy.  Pediatrics 2001;107 (5) 1011- 1015PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Dupuy  ADehen  LBourrat  E Accuracy of standard dermoscopy for diagnosing scabies.  J Am Acad Dermatol 2007;56 (1) 53- 62PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Evidence-Based Dermatology: Study
March 2009

Accuracy of Diagnosis of Pediculosis Capitis: Visual Inspection vs Wet Combing

Author Affiliations
 

MICHAELBIGBYMD

 

DAMIANOABENIMD, MPHROSAMARIACORONADsc, MDURBÀGONZÁLEZMD, PhDABRAR A.QURESHIMD, MPHHYWELWILLIAMSMSc, PhD, FRCP

Arch Dermatol. 2009;145(3):309-313. doi:10.1001/archdermatol.2008.587
Abstract

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.

×