Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30041646›Full record

ArticleBMC dermatology2018

Expert Consensus on The Management of Dermatophytosis in India (ECTODERM India).

Murlidhar Rajagopalan, Arun Inamadar, Asit Mittal, Autar K Miskeen, C R Srinivas, Kabir Sardana, Kiran Godse, Krina Patel, Madhu Rengasamy, Shivaprakash Rudramurthy and 1 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in BMC dermatology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

79 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Global Emergence ofInfection and drug resistance · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Murlidhar RajagopalanDepartment of Dermatology, Apollo Hospital, Chennai, India. docmurli@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7738-4175
Arun InamadarDepartment of Dermatology, SBMP Medical College, BLDE Deemed University, Bijapur, India.
Asit MittalDepartment of Dermatology, R.N.T. Medical College and Hospital, Udaipur, India.
Autar K MiskeenDr Miskeen's Central Clinical Microbiology Lab, Thane, India.
C R SrinivasDepartment of Dermatology, PSG Hospitals, Peelamedu, Coimbatore, India.
Kabir SardanaDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprosy Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, New Delhi, India.
Kiran GodseDepartment of Dermatology, Padmashree Dr D Y Patil University, Navi Mumbai, India.
Krina PatelDepartment Of Dermatology, GMERS Medical College & Hospital, Sola, Ahmedabad, India.
Madhu RengasamyDepartment of Dermatology (Mycology), Madras Medical College, Chennai, India.
Shivaprakash RudramurthyMycology Division, Department of Medical Microbiology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.
Sunil DograDepartment of Dermatology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDermatophytosis management has become an important public health issue, with a large void in research in the area of disease pathophysiology and management. Current treatment recommendations appear to lose their relevance in the current clinical scenario. The objective of the current consensus was to provide an experience-driven approach regarding the diagnosis and management of tinea corporis, cruris and pedis.

methodsEleven experts in the field of clinical dermatology and mycology participated in the modified Delphi process consisting of two workshops and five rounds of questionnaires, elaborating definitions, diagnosis and management. Panel members were asked to mark "agree" or "disagree" beside each statement, and provide comments. More than 75% of concordance in response was set to reach the consensus.

resultKOH mount microscopy was recommended as a point of care testing. Fungal culture was recommended in chronic, recurrent, relapse, recalcitrant and multisite tinea cases. Topical monotherapy was recommended for naïve tinea cruris and corporis (localised) cases, while a combination of systemic and topical antifungals was recommended for naïve and recalcitrant tinea pedis, extensive lesions of corporis and recalcitrant cases of cruris and corporis. Because of the anti-inflammatory, antibacterial and broad spectrum activity, topical azoles should be preferred. Terbinafine and itraconazole should be the preferred systemic drugs. Minimum duration of treatment should be 2-4 weeks in naïve cases and > 4 weeks in recalcitrant cases. Topical corticosteroid use in the clinical practice of tinea management was strongly discouraged.

conclusionThis consensus guideline will help to standardise care, provide guidance on the management, and assist in clinical decision-making for healthcare professionals.

Indexed as

AdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntifungal AgentsCoinfectionConsensusDelphi TechniqueHealth Care SurveysHumansIndiaSkin Diseases, BacterialTineaYoung AdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntifungal AgentsCombination therapyConsensusDelphiDermatophytosisnaïveRecalcitrantTinea

Identifiers

PMID30041646
PMCPMC6057051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.