Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
How reliable is skin cytology testing for pets?
By Budach, Svenja C & Mueller, Ralf S·Published in Veterinary dermatology·2012·Small Animal Medicine Clinic, Germany·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 We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above.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: Reproducibility of a semiquantitative method to assess cutaneous cytology.
Plain-English summary
This study looked at a method used by veterinarians to assess bacteria and yeast on the skin and in the ears of pets, which helps in diagnosing skin issues and tracking treatment progress. A group of 60 veterinarians and students evaluated slides and photographs of skin samples to see how consistently they could grade the presence of different microorganisms. The results showed that both experienced and inexperienced evaluators were quite consistent in their assessments, with high reliability scores. This means that the method can be trusted for use in everyday veterinary practice when monitoring treatments for skin infections. Overall, the study suggests that this grading method is effective and can be recommended for use in veterinary dermatology.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cutaneous cytology is used in veterinary dermatology to assess bacteria and yeast on the skin surface and in the ears for diagnostic purposes and to monitor treatment success. A number of methods were used in reported studies to quantify micro-organisms on cytology, but evaluation of the intra- and interobserver reliability of the methods is rare. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the intra- and interobserver reliability of a semiquantitative cytology assessment method frequently used in practice. METHODS: A total of 60 experienced and inexperienced veterinarians and veterinary students were asked to evaluate 10 glass slides and 18 photographs of cutaneous cytology twice. Cocci, rods, yeast, neutrophilic and eosinophilic granulocytes and macrophages were graded from 0 to 4+. RESULTS: The intra-observer reproducibility for evaluating the slides in the experienced group was 84.3%; in the inexperienced group it was 82.6%. For the photographs, the intra-observer reproducibility was 92.1% in both groups. The interobserver reproducibility for evaluating the slides was 81.6 and 81.0% in the experienced and inexperienced group, respectively; corresponding values for the photographs were 91.0 and 90.0%. There was no significant difference between different participants or between the first and second evaluation by each participant for any of the parameters graded. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Based on these results, this semiquantitative method of grading can be recommended for evaluating and monitoring of antimicrobial therapy in daily practice.
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/22809453/