↓ Skip to main content

Can Routine Histopathology Distinguish Between Vulvar Cutaneous Candidosis and Dermatophytosis?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Can Routine Histopathology Distinguish Between Vulvar Cutaneous Candidosis and Dermatophytosis?
Published in
Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease, July 2016
DOI 10.1097/lgt.0000000000000208
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This study aimed to determine if vulvar cutaneous candidosis and dermatophytosis can be distinguished by routine histopathology. Twenty-four cases of periodic acid-Schiff-stained vulvar biopsies with a diagnosis of cutaneous mycosis were reviewed and histopathological characteristics on both periodic acid-Schiff and hematoxylin and eosin were recorded. Data were collected on age, clinical impression, microbiological results, and treatment, and all specimens underwent multiplex polymerase chain reaction analysis. The mean age was 60 years, and all but 3 women had at least 1 risk factor for mycosis including 15 (62.5%) with lichen sclerosus and/or planus managed with topical corticosteroids. A clinical suspicion of tinea or candidosis was documented in 12 (50%) of the cases. Vulvovaginal swabs showed Candida species in 9 women; one skin scraping was positive for Trichophyton rubrum. Microbiology was not obtained in 8 patients, 5 had a negative swab, and 1 had negative skin scrapings. No histopathological or morphological features distinguished Candida species from dermatophytes. Organisms appeared as basophilic structures in the stratum corneum in 15 (62.5%) hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides. Polymerase chain reaction results were positive for Candida species in 5 (21%) and for dermatophytes in 3 (13%), negative in 13, and unassessable in 3 cases. Vulvar cutaneous candidosis and dermatophytosis cannot be reliably distinguished by routine histopathology or specific polymerase chain reaction. A high index of suspicion combined with adequate microbiological testing remains the best approach to differentiating between the 2, which impacts on counseling, treatment, and prognosis.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Librarian 2 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 15%
Student > Master 2 15%
Other 1 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 4 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Neuroscience 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 May 2017.
All research outputs
#6,997,643
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease
#117
of 618 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,744
of 367,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Lower Genital Tract Disease
#3
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 618 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 367,266 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.