IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pntd00/0006549.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Consensus criteria for the diagnosis of scabies: A Delphi study of international experts

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Engelman
  • L Claire Fuller
  • Andrew C Steer
  • for the International Alliance for the Control of Scabies Delphi panel

Abstract

Background: Scabies was added to the WHO Neglected Tropical Diseases portfolio in 2017, and further understanding of the disease burden is now required. There are no uniformly accepted test methods or examination procedures for diagnosis, which limits the interpretation of research and epidemiological findings. The International Alliance for the Control of Scabies (IACS) designated harmonization of diagnostic procedures as a priority for the development of a global control strategy. Therefore, we aimed to develop consensus criteria for the diagnosis of scabies. Methodology / Principal findings: We conducted an iterative, consensus (Delphi) study involving international experts in the diagnosis of scabies. Panel members were recruited through expression of interest and targeted invitation of experts. The Delphi study consisted of four rounds of anonymous surveys. Rounds 1 and 2 involved generation and ranking an extensive list of possible features. In Rounds 3 and 4, participants were presented results from previous rounds and indicated agreement with a series of draft criteria. Panel participants (n = 34, range per Round 28–30) were predominantly highly experienced clinicians, representing a range of clinical expertise and all inhabited continents. Based on initial rounds, a draft set of criteria were developed, incorporating three levels of diagnostic certainty–Confirmed Scabies, Clinical Scabies and Suspected Scabies. Consensus was reached in Round 4, with a very high level of agreement (> 89%) for all levels of criteria and subcategories. Adoption of the criteria was supported by 96% of panel members. Conclusions / Significance: Consensus criteria for scabies diagnosis were established with very high agreement. The 2018 IACS Criteria for the Diagnosis of Scabies can be implemented for scabies research and mapping projects, and for surveillance after control interventions. Validation of the criteria is required. Author summary: Scabies causes rash and severe itch and predisposes to serious infection and chronic diseases of the heart and kidneys. Despite scabies being an ancient disease found in all parts of the world, we currently lack reliable laboratory tests. Clinicians generally make an assessment based on history and skin examination. Variation in diagnosis causes problems when trying to determine the prevalence of scabies in a region, or when trying to investigate the effectiveness of a treatment or control strategy. We aimed to establish consensus among experts on how to diagnose scabies. Thirty-four international experts responded to anonymous questionnaires on how tests and clinical features of scabies should be used to form a diagnosis. Draft criteria were developed and refined, incorporating three levels of diagnostic certainty–Confirmed Scabies, Clinical Scabies and Suspected Scabies. After three rounds of surveys, 82% of participants supported the criteria. After four rounds, consensus was reached with very high agreement for all criteria (Confirmed Scabies, 96%; Clinical Scabies, 93%; Suspected Scabies, 100%) and 96% supported adoption of the criteria. It is hoped the 2018 IACS Criteria for the Diagnosis of Scabies will allow harmonization of diagnosis and reporting, and comparison between studies of scabies burden and treatments.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Engelman & L Claire Fuller & Andrew C Steer & for the International Alliance for the Control of Scabies Delphi panel, 2018. "Consensus criteria for the diagnosis of scabies: A Delphi study of international experts," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-9, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0006549
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006549
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0006549
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0006549&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pntd.0006549?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0006549. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.