Related Experiment Videos
Candidal balano-posthitis: a study of diagnostic methods
1Department of Genitourinary Medicine, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Genitourinary Medicine
|December 1, 1995
Summary
Microscopy for diagnosing candidal balanoposthitis shows low sensitivity, but an adhesive-tape method improves detection. Most genitourinary medicine clinics use microscopy and culture, though some rely on clinical appearance alone.
Area of Science:
- Medical Mycology
- Genitourinary Medicine
- Diagnostic Microbiology
Background:
- Candidal balanoposthitis is a common condition requiring accurate diagnosis.
- Microscopy and fungal culture are standard diagnostic methods.
- Variations in diagnostic practices exist among clinics.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the diagnostic accuracy of microscopy versus fungal culture for candidal balanoposthitis.
- To assess different methods for collecting samples for microscopy.
- To document current diagnostic practices in Great Britain's genitourinary medicine clinics.
Main Methods:
- Penile samples were collected using plain-slide and adhesive-tape methods for microscopy and culture.
- Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of microscopy were calculated against culture as the gold standard.
- Questionnaires were distributed to genitourinary medicine clinics across Great Britain.
Main Results:
- Candida was detected in 35% of patients.
- Microscopy sensitivity was significantly higher with the adhesive-tape method (65%) compared to the plain-slide method (12%).
- Culture was used by 78% of clinics, and microscopy by 69%, with varying sample collection techniques.
Conclusions:
- Microscopy for candidal balanoposthitis diagnosis has low sensitivity, which is highly dependent on the sample collection method.
- The adhesive-tape method offers improved diagnostic sensitivity for microscopy.
- Despite reliance on clinical appearance by some clinics, microscopy and culture remain prevalent diagnostic tools.