Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
How to diagnose skin infections in dogs and cats?
By Kaufmann, Ronnie et al.·Published in Veterinary dermatology·2016·Dermatology Department·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Comparison between point-of-care dermatophyte test medium and mycology laboratory culture for diagnosis of dermatophytosis in dogs and cats.
Plain-English summary
A group of 54 dogs and 47 cats suspected of having skin infections were tested for dermatophytosis (a type of fungal infection) using a quick in-clinic test called PoC-DTM and compared to a more thorough lab culture. The results showed that when veterinarians examined the samples closely, the PoC-DTM was very accurate, with only a 3% chance of error. However, when the test was done without a detailed examination, the accuracy dropped significantly, leading to a 19.4% chance of misdiagnosis. This means that for the best results, a thorough evaluation of the samples is important.
People also search for: dog skin infection test · cat fungal infection diagnosis · dermatophytosis treatment for pets
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Point-of-care Dermatophyte Test Medium (PoC-DTM) is a diagnostic procedure to rule in/rule out dermatophytosis in veterinary clinics. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of PoC-DTM in the clinic compared to DTM plate culture in a mycology laboratory and to compare results obtained by general practitioners and referral clinicians. ANIMALS: Hair samples were collected from 47 cats and 54 dogs with suspected dermatophytosis and from nine healthy controls (seven cats and two dogs). METHODS: This was a multicentre blinded study. In one group (65 suspected cases, 9 healthy controls), PoC-DTM results were evaluated by clinicians in a referral clinic (SP group) who examined the colony morphology macroscopically and microscopically. In the other group (36 suspected cases) PoC-DTM results were evaluated by clinicians from general practice for colour change only, with no macroscopic or microscopic examination (GP group). All hair samples were also cultured on DTM plates in a mycology laboratory. Laboratory culture was considered the gold standard for comparison. RESULTS: Agreements between tests were 97% (two false positive; κ = 0.839) and 80.6% (five false positives and two false negatives; κ = 0.466) in the SP and GP groups, respectively. This difference between groups was significant (P = 0.024). CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: When applying macroscopic and microscopic evaluation of the colony, PoC-DTM is accurate for diagnosing dermatophytes with only a 3% chance of error. However, when macroscopic and microscopic examination is not included there is significant (19.4%) chance for an incorrect diagnosis.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27237544/