Plastic detection comb better than visual screening for diagnosis of head louse infestation

Epidemiology and Infection

Volumn 136, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 1425-1431

  Balcioglu, C ^a   Burgess, I F ^b   Limoncu, M E ^a   Sahin M T ^c   Ozbel, Y ^c   Bilac C ^c   Kurt, O ^a   Larsen, K S ^d  

^a CELAL BAYAR UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b Cambridgeshire   (United Kingdom)

^c EGE UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^d KSL Consulting   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PERMETHRIN; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; ZALVOR;

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG TREATMENT FAILURE; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFESTATION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PARASITE IDENTIFICATION; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PEDICULUS; RURAL AREA; SCHOOL CHILD; TURKEY (REPUBLIC);

ADOLESCENT; ANIMALS; CHILD; FEMALE; HUMANS; LICE INFESTATIONS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; PEDICULUS; PHYSICAL EXAMINATION; RURAL POPULATION; SCHOOLS; TURKEY;

EID: 52249094849     PISSN: 09502688     EISSN: 14694409     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0950268807000118     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Anon. The Head Lice Diagnostic Pocket Pack, 2nd edn. Cambridge: BLM Health, 1992.
2. Williams KL, et al. Lice, nits and school policy. Pediatrics 2001; 107:1011-1015.
3. Pollack RJ, Kiszewski A, Spielman A. overdiagnosis and consequent mismanagement of head louse infestations in North America. Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal 2000; 19: 689-693.
4. Mumu̧oglu KY, et al. Louse comb versus direct visual examination for the diagnosis of head louse infestations. Pediatric Dermatology 2001; 18: 9-12.
5. De Maeseneer J, et al. Wet combing versus traditional scalp inspection to detect head lice in schoolchildren: Observational study. British Medical Journal 2000; 321 : 1187-1188.
6. Altman DG. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. London: Chapman & Hall, 1991, pp. 266-268.
7. Berger MY, et al. Wet combing no better than classical scalp inspection to detect head lice. British Medical Journal (http:// bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/321/7270/1187#11085), 1 December 2000.
8. Kokturk A, et al. The prevalence of pediculosis capitis in schoolchildren in Mersin, Turkey. International Journal of Dermatology 2003; 42: 694-698.
9. Tanyuksel M, et al. Prevalence and treatment of Pediculus humanus capitis with 1% permethrin and 0-4% d-phenothrin in Turkey. Acta Medica (Hradec Králové) 2003; 46: 73-75.
10. Akisa C, Delibas SB, Aksoy U. Albendazole: Single or combination therapy with permethrin against pediculosis capitis. Pediatric Dermatology 2006; 23: 179-182.
11. Oǧuzkaya Artan M, Baykan Z, Koç AN. The prevalence of Pediculus capitis in students of eight primary schools in the rural area of Kayseri province [in Turkish]. Türkiye Parazitoloji Dergisi 2006; 30: 112-114.
12. Özçelik S, Deǧerli S, Aslan A. Investigation of the prevalence of Pediculus in Alahaci village primary school students in Sivas province [in Turkish]. Türkiye Parazitoloji Dergisi 2006; 30: 184-186.
13. Rupes V, et al. A resistance of head lice (Pediculus capitis) to permethrin in Czech Republic. Central European Journal of Public Health 1995; 1 : 30-32.
14. Mumçuoglu KY, et al. Permethrin resistance in the head louse Pediculus capitis from Israel. Medical and Veterinary Entomology 1995; 9: 427-432.
15. Burgess IF, Brown CM. Management of insecticide resistance in head lice, Pediculus capitis (Anoplura: Pediculidae). In: Robinson WH, Rettich F, Rambo GW, eds. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Urban Pests. Prague, Czech Republic: Grafické závody Hronov, 1999, pp. 249-253.
16. Lee SH, et al. Molecular analyses of kdr-like resistance in permethrin-resistant strains of head lice, Pediculus capitis. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 2000; 66: 130-143.