Twenty unstained and 20 stained hair samples from each group (n = 40) were anonymized and examined by veterinarians using a light microscope.
Participants recorded samples as âinfectedâ or âuninfectedâ.
Participants were then shown and allowed to use photographic images while examining the same 40 samples.
Without staining, investigators correctly identified 12.7 ± 4 of the 20 samples (mean ± SD) and with staining 13.6 (±3).
After illustrative guidelines were shown, they correctly identified a mean of 16.9 (±2.5) unstained slides and 15.8 (±2.3) stained slides.
âIllustrated guidelinesâ and âhair infectionâ significantly increased the probability of a correct answer, whereas âstainingâ did not.
Logistic regression determined that âstudy participantâ, âillustrated guidelinesâ (OR = 2.6) and âhair infectionâ (OR = 2.1) had a significant influence on the results, whereas âstainingâ did not.
Sensitivity and specificity of direct examination were 70.5% and 56%, respectively, compared with culture status.
When examining hairs for the presence or absence of infected dermatophyte hairs, diagnostic accuracy was improved when observers used illustrated guides compared with just examining stained slides.
Source: RareĆ CÄpitan Carlo Schievano Chiara Noli, Evaluation of the value of staining hair samples with a modified WrightâGiemsa stain and/or showing illustrated guidelines for the microscopic diagnosis of dermatophytosis in cats. Veterinary Dermatology, Early View. First published: 17 April 2018 https://doi.org/10.1111/vde.12543
|
