两种检测酒渣鼻患者毛囊蠕形螨和短蠕形螨技术的比较:标准化皮肤表面活检与直接显微镜检查。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 PARASITOLOGY
Jaime Pérez Wilson, Sebastián Andreani Figueroa, Soledad Aspillaga Vergara, Juana Benedetto Eblen, Cristóbal Lecaros Cornejo, Viviana García Ramos, Diego Méndez Villanueva, Daniel Velásquez Muñoz, Paulina Ríos, Angelo Di Gennaro, Tomás Olivares, Jorge Olivares
{"title":"两种检测酒渣鼻患者毛囊蠕形螨和短蠕形螨技术的比较:标准化皮肤表面活检与直接显微镜检查。","authors":"Jaime Pérez Wilson, Sebastián Andreani Figueroa, Soledad Aspillaga Vergara, Juana Benedetto Eblen, Cristóbal Lecaros Cornejo, Viviana García Ramos, Diego Méndez Villanueva, Daniel Velásquez Muñoz, Paulina Ríos, Angelo Di Gennaro, Tomás Olivares, Jorge Olivares","doi":"10.1017/S0031182025100632","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin disease affecting approximately 5.4% of the world population. Among its pathogenic factors is infestation by <i>Demodex</i> spp. Standardized skin surface biopsy (SSSB) and direct microscopic examination (DME) are widely used methods to measure <i>Demodex</i> spp density (Dd); however, there is no agreement on the method of choice, nor the prevalence of infestation in rosacea patients. This study compared both techniques in rosacea patients. A prospective study was conducted with 61 patients diagnosed with rosacea by dermatologists from two dermatology centres. Dd was evaluated using SSSB and DME in each patient. Results, median sampling time and reported pain were analyzed using appropriate statistical methods. The median Dd was significantly higher with SSSB (11 mites/cm<sup>2</sup>) compared to DME (1 mites/cm<sup>2</sup>; <i>P</i> < 0.001). Infestation (>5 mites/cm<sup>2</sup>) was detected in 64% of patients with SSSB and in 28% with DME (<i>P</i> < 0.001). The median sampling time was longer for SSSB (60 s) than for DME (30 s; <i>P</i> < 0.001). Both methods were associated with mild pain, slightly lower with DME (<i>P</i> = 0.033). SSSB proved more effective than DME for detecting <i>Demodex</i> spp. in rosacea, identifying a greater total number of mites and a higher percentage of infestation. Up to 64% of rosacea patients showed infestation with <i>Demodex</i> spp. using the SSSB technique. The results reinforce the use of SSSB as the standard technique for diagnosing <i>Demodex</i> spp. infestation in rosacea patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":19967,"journal":{"name":"Parasitology","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of two techniques for measuring <i>Demodex folliculorum</i> and <i>Demodex brevis</i> in rosacea patients: standardized skin surface biopsy vs. direct microscopic examination.\",\"authors\":\"Jaime Pérez Wilson, Sebastián Andreani Figueroa, Soledad Aspillaga Vergara, Juana Benedetto Eblen, Cristóbal Lecaros Cornejo, Viviana García Ramos, Diego Méndez Villanueva, Daniel Velásquez Muñoz, Paulina Ríos, Angelo Di Gennaro, Tomás Olivares, Jorge Olivares\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0031182025100632\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin disease affecting approximately 5.4% of the world population. Among its pathogenic factors is infestation by <i>Demodex</i> spp. Standardized skin surface biopsy (SSSB) and direct microscopic examination (DME) are widely used methods to measure <i>Demodex</i> spp density (Dd); however, there is no agreement on the method of choice, nor the prevalence of infestation in rosacea patients. This study compared both techniques in rosacea patients. A prospective study was conducted with 61 patients diagnosed with rosacea by dermatologists from two dermatology centres. Dd was evaluated using SSSB and DME in each patient. Results, median sampling time and reported pain were analyzed using appropriate statistical methods. The median Dd was significantly higher with SSSB (11 mites/cm<sup>2</sup>) compared to DME (1 mites/cm<sup>2</sup>; <i>P</i> < 0.001). Infestation (>5 mites/cm<sup>2</sup>) was detected in 64% of patients with SSSB and in 28% with DME (<i>P</i> < 0.001). The median sampling time was longer for SSSB (60 s) than for DME (30 s; <i>P</i> < 0.001). Both methods were associated with mild pain, slightly lower with DME (<i>P</i> = 0.033). SSSB proved more effective than DME for detecting <i>Demodex</i> spp. in rosacea, identifying a greater total number of mites and a higher percentage of infestation. Up to 64% of rosacea patients showed infestation with <i>Demodex</i> spp. using the SSSB technique. The results reinforce the use of SSSB as the standard technique for diagnosing <i>Demodex</i> spp. infestation in rosacea patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19967,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Parasitology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Parasitology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182025100632\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PARASITOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Parasitology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182025100632","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PARASITOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

酒渣鼻是一种慢性炎症性皮肤病,影响约5.4%的世界人口。标准化皮肤表面活检(SSSB)和直接显微检查(DME)是常用的蠕形螨密度(Dd)测定方法;然而,在选择的方法上没有一致意见,也没有在酒渣鼻患者中感染的流行程度。这项研究比较了两种技术在酒渣鼻患者中的应用。一项前瞻性研究对来自两个皮肤科中心的皮肤科医生诊断为酒渣鼻的61例患者进行了研究。采用SSSB和DME对每位患者进行Dd评估。结果:采用适当的统计学方法对中位采样时间和报告疼痛进行分析。SSSB患者的Dd中位数(11螨/cm2)明显高于DME患者(1螨/cm2; p5螨/cm2), SSSB患者的Dd中位数为64%,DME患者为28% (P = 0.033)。SSSB比二甲醚对酒渣鼻中蠕形螨的检测更有效,鉴定出的螨总数更多,侵染率更高。使用SSSB技术,高达64%的酒渣鼻患者显示蠕形螨感染。结果表明SSSB可作为诊断酒渣鼻患者蠕形螨感染的标准技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of two techniques for measuring Demodex folliculorum and Demodex brevis in rosacea patients: standardized skin surface biopsy vs. direct microscopic examination.

Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin disease affecting approximately 5.4% of the world population. Among its pathogenic factors is infestation by Demodex spp. Standardized skin surface biopsy (SSSB) and direct microscopic examination (DME) are widely used methods to measure Demodex spp density (Dd); however, there is no agreement on the method of choice, nor the prevalence of infestation in rosacea patients. This study compared both techniques in rosacea patients. A prospective study was conducted with 61 patients diagnosed with rosacea by dermatologists from two dermatology centres. Dd was evaluated using SSSB and DME in each patient. Results, median sampling time and reported pain were analyzed using appropriate statistical methods. The median Dd was significantly higher with SSSB (11 mites/cm2) compared to DME (1 mites/cm2; P < 0.001). Infestation (>5 mites/cm2) was detected in 64% of patients with SSSB and in 28% with DME (P < 0.001). The median sampling time was longer for SSSB (60 s) than for DME (30 s; P < 0.001). Both methods were associated with mild pain, slightly lower with DME (P = 0.033). SSSB proved more effective than DME for detecting Demodex spp. in rosacea, identifying a greater total number of mites and a higher percentage of infestation. Up to 64% of rosacea patients showed infestation with Demodex spp. using the SSSB technique. The results reinforce the use of SSSB as the standard technique for diagnosing Demodex spp. infestation in rosacea patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Parasitology
Parasitology 医学-寄生虫学
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
280
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Parasitology is an important specialist journal covering the latest advances in the subject. It publishes original research and review papers on all aspects of parasitology and host-parasite relationships, including the latest discoveries in parasite biochemistry, molecular biology and genetics, ecology and epidemiology in the context of the biological, medical and veterinary sciences. Included in the subscription price are two special issues which contain reviews of current hot topics, one of which is the proceedings of the annual Symposia of the British Society for Parasitology, while the second, covering areas of significant topical interest, is commissioned by the editors and the editorial board.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信