The American Journal of dermatopathology · 2022
Proficiency at Tick Identification by Pathologists and Clinicians Is Poor.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Laga Alvaro C, Granter Scott R, Mather Thomas N
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Prompt accurate identification of tick species is required for appropriate administration of single dose antimicrobial prophylaxis for Lyme disease in selected patients. To determine the proficiency of clinicians at tick identification in the northeastern United States where Lyme disease has its highest incidence, we undertook a survey.
METHODS: We analyzed the results of a voluntary survey testing proficiency in identifying tick species using high-resolution photographs of ticks.
RESULTS: Only 35% of ticks were correctly identified. Although 60% of respondents could identify a nonengorged adult blacklegged tick, only 34% could correctly identify a partially engorged blacklegged tick. Participants performed even worse at classifying brown dog, American dog, and Lone Star ticks.
CONCLUSIONS: Proficiency of tick identification by pathologists and clinicians is poor.
METHODS: We analyzed the results of a voluntary survey testing proficiency in identifying tick species using high-resolution photographs of ticks.
RESULTS: Only 35% of ticks were correctly identified. Although 60% of respondents could identify a nonengorged adult blacklegged tick, only 34% could correctly identify a partially engorged blacklegged tick. Participants performed even worse at classifying brown dog, American dog, and Lone Star ticks.
CONCLUSIONS: Proficiency of tick identification by pathologists and clinicians is poor.