Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33235834›Full record

ArticleIndian dermatology online journal

The DermLep Study I: Results of Prospective Nation-Wide Survey of the Number & Profile of Leprosy Patients seen by Dermatologists in India.

P Narasimha Rao, Santoshdev Rathod, Sujai Suneetha, Sunil Dogra, Sunil Kumar Gupta, Rita Vora, Shushruth Kamoji, Swagta Tambe

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Indian dermatology online journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 39% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

8 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

P Narasimha RaoDepartment of Dermatology, Bhaskar Medical College, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Santoshdev RathodDepartment of Dermatology, Smt. NHL Municipal Medical College, Ahmedabad, India.
Sujai SuneethaInstitute for Specialized Services in Leprosy (INSSIL), Nireekshana ACET, Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Sunil DograDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Sunil Kumar GuptaDepartment of Dermatology, AIIMS, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Rita VoraDepartment of Dermatology, Sree Krishna Hospital, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat, India.
Shushruth KamojiDepartment of Dermatology, Belagavi Institute of Medical Sciences, Belagavi, Karnataka, India.
Swagta TambeInnovation Skin Clinic, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
All India Institute of Medical Sciences · INGandhi Medical College & Hospital · INInstitute of Medical Sciences · INPain Clinic of India · INPost Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research · INShree Krishna Hospital · INSmt. N.H.L. Municipal Medical College · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere is evidence to suggest that there is a mismatch between the number of reported cases of leprosy in India and the number of actual cases in the country. One reason could be that many patients are diagnosed and treated outside the NLEP network and dermatologists may be managing some of these patients not captured by official statistics. To estimate these missing numbers, the METHODOLOGY: The

resultsTotal of 201 dermatologists from 20 states of India participated in the survey. 3701 leprosy patients (M: F ratio 2.1:1) were seen. Of them 46.62% (n = 1680) were new; 22.89% (n = 825) were under-treatment; and 19.65% (n = 708) were post RFT patients. Children <15 years constituted 4.29%, while elderly >60 years were 22.21%. As per WHO classification, MB were 73.36% and PB 28.46%. Of all patients 30.91% had lepra reactions, with T2R being more frequent. While 23.58% of all patients in the survey had G2D; in new patients 17.79%; and in post RFT patients 37% had G2D. Among the 1680 new cases seen, 59% were reported to NLEP by the dermatologists and 41% remained unreported mainly by the private dermatologists, among whom for 20% of the cases they mentioned "no access to register". Source of MDT was WHO-MDT in 60.09% of new cases and for rest of 39.91% it was private pharmacies where private dermatologists had no access to MDT blister packs.

conclusionThis survey suggests that a good number of new-untreated leprosy patients, treatment defaulters and post RFT cases are managed by dermatologists in India. About 40% of the new patients managed mainly by private dermatologists are not being reported to NLEP for various reasons, and these constitute the "missing numbers" from government statistics. If extrapolated to the large of number of practicing dermatologists in India, these numbers could be very significant. The high percentage of G2D noted in patients surveyed (23.58%) and post RFT patient issues observed need special attention. There is a need to develop access for dermatologists to confidentially report leprosy patients treated at their clinics to the NLEP.

Indexed as

DermatologistDermLep Surveyleprosymissing numbers

Identifiers

PMID33235834
PMCPMC7678510
OpenAlexW3089831961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.