Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 297

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparison of diagnostic methods in the evaluation of onychomycosis

Open access
Weinberg, Jeffrey M, Koestenblatt, Evelyn K, Tutrone, William D, Tishler, Hillarie R, Najarian, Lily·2003·Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology

Abstract

BACKGROUND Onychomycosis is a common problem seen in clinical practice. Given the differential diagnosis of dystrophic nails, it is helpful to obtain a definitive diagnosis of dermatophyte infection before the initiation of antifungal therapy. Potassium hydroxide (KOH) preparation and fungal culture, which are typically used in the diagnosis of these infections, often yield false-negative results. Recent reports have suggested that nail plate biopsy using periodic acid-Schiff (PAS) (Bx/PAS) stain may be a very sensitive technique for the diagnosis of onychomycosis. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to compare KOH preparation, culture, Bx/PAS stain, and calcofluor white (CW) stain in the diagnosis of onychomycosis and to determine their sensitivity and specificity. METHODS We evaluated 105 patients with suspected onychomycosis using 4 diagnostic methods: KOH preparation, culture, Bx/PAS, and CW stain. CW stain binds to cellulose and chitin, and fluoresces when exposed to UV radiation. It is a highly sensitive and specific technique for the detection of dermatophytes. To determine the clinical usefulness and performance characteristics of each test, CW was chosen as the gold standard for statistical analysis. RESULTS Of the patients, 93 had at least 1 of the 4 diagnostic methods positive for the presence of organisms. The following were calculated for each test: sensitivity; specificity; positive predictive value; and negative predictive value. The sensitivities of each of the techniques were as follows: KOH 80%; Bx/PAS 92%; and culture 59%. Both KOH and Bx/PAS methods were more sensitive than culture (P =.00002). Bx/PAS was also more sensitive than KOH (P =.03). The specificities were as follows: KOH 72%; Bx/PAS 72%; and culture 82%. The positive predictive value calculated for the different techniques were: KOH 88%; Bx/PAS 89.7%; and culture 90%. In terms of negative predictive value, the results were: KOH 58%; Bx/PAS 77%; and culture 43%. CONCLUSION Bx/PAS is the most sensitive method for the diagnosis of onychomycosis. It is also superior to the other methods in its negative predictive value. It is indicated if other methods are negative and clinical suspicion is high, and potentially is the single method of choice for the evaluation of onychomycosis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1067/s0190-9622(03)01480-4

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 297

Metadata

Authors
Weinberg, J. M., Koestenblatt, E. K., Tutrone, W. D., Tishler, H. R., & Najarian, L.
Venue
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-08
Volume
49
Issue
2
Pages
193-197
ISSN
0190-9622 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2082023874
Cited by
297
References
0
FWCI
6.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of diagnostic methods in the evaluation of onychomycosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1067/s0190-9622(03)01480-4
The paper
Weinberg, J. M., Koestenblatt, E. K., Tutrone, W. D., Tishler, H. R., & Najarian, L. (2003). Comparison of diagnostic methods in the evaluation of onychomycosis. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. https://doi.org/10.1067/s0190-9622(03)01480-4

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.