Clinico-Pathological Concordance Rate of Scalp Lesions Showing Alopecia.
Аннотация
BACKGROUND
Some alopecic diseases can be diagnosed by detailed history taking and physical examination, but in many cases, biopsy must be performed to make a definite diagnosis.
AIMS AND
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to evaluate the clinico-pathological concordance of scalp lesions showing alopecia.
MATERIALS AND
METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed the electronic medical records and biopsy slides of patients who underwent biopsy for evaluating scalp lesions showing alopecia. Based on the definitions of clinico-pathological concordances, scalp alopecic disease was evaluated.
RESULTS
A total of 121 patients were enrolled in the study. A total of 203 clinical differential diagnoses were made before performing a biopsy. Thirty-one patients showed full concordance, and 58 patients showed partial concordance; thus overall concordance was shown in 89 patients (73.55%). Folliculitis decalvans and alopecia areata showed a higher full concordance rate than average (P < 0.05), whereas dissecting folliculitis showed a lower overall concordance rate than average, and folliculitis decalvans showed a higher overall concordance rate than average (P < 0.05). The overall concordance rate of alopecia areata was 100% (P = 0.061).
CONCLUSION
In diagnosing folliculitis decalvans and alopecia areata, which showed high full and overall concordance, performing a biopsy to make a definite diagnosis is not always necessary, especially when patients show typical clinical features. Dissecting folliculitis, which showed low overall concordance, was less likely to be suspected as a clinical differential diagnosis, making it difficult to distinguish based on clinical findings alone. Therefore, when it is suspected, a detailed evaluation including a biopsy is recommended.
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
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.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.