ArticleIndian journal of dermatology
A Cross-Sectional Study of Epidemiological and Clinical Aspects of Pityriasis Rosea along with Dermoscopic Analysis and Histopathology Correlation.
Article in Indian journal of dermatology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Beyond the Herald Patch: Exploring the Complex Landscape of Pityriasis Rosea.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pityriasis Rosea (PR) is a common, yet enigmatic, dermatological condition characterized by a distinctive clinical presentation. Despite its prevalence, the aetiology and pathogenesis of PR remain elusive. Aims: To study the epidemiological and clinical aspects of patients with PR. To study dermoscopic findings and carry out histopathological correlation. Methods: A cross-sectional study of 50 patients was conducted. A detailed clinical history was taken and an examination was done followed by a dermoscopy. Quantitative data like age and duration of disease are presented with the help of standard deviation. Qualitative risk factors, like gender, age groups, symptomatology, site of lesion, findings or cutaneous examination, dermoscopy findings, and histopathology findings, are presented with the help of frequency and percentages. Results: PR shows male preponderance and mean age of occurrence being 30.8 ± 15.7 years. Forty per cent of patients had an atypical clinical presentation. The most frequently seen dermoscopy findings were diffuse red background (58%), peripheral collarette scale (62%), and peripheral dotted vessels (50%). On histopathology, the most common findings were spongiosis (44%), parakeratosis (38%), irregular acanthosis (34%), perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate (56%), and red blood cell extravasation (36%). Limitations: Sample size was less due to COVID. As this was a corss-sectional study follow up of patients could not be done. Conclusion: While the diagnosis of PR is clinical, it is difficult in atypical cases where dermoscopy comes to the aid. It also helps identify the age of lesions, thus helping decide the treatment strategy for patients. Biopsy remains the gold standard in ruling out other differentials of PR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.