Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39850690›Full record

ArticleIndian dermatology online journal

Consensus Based Indian Guidelines for the Management of Pemphigus Vulgaris and Pemphigus Foliaceous.

Dipankar De, Hitaishi Mehta, Shikha Shah, Kidangazhiathmana Ajithkumar, Shyamanta Barua, Laxmisha Chandrashekar, Manas Chatterjee, Vishal Gupta, Sujay Khandpur, Geeti Khullar and 18 more

Abstract read
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 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

28 authors.

Dipankar DeDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Hitaishi MehtaDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Shikha ShahDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Kidangazhiathmana AjithkumarDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Govenment Medical College, Kottayam, Kerala, India.
Shyamanta BaruaDepartment of Dermatology, Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh, Assam, India.
Laxmisha ChandrashekarDepartment of Dermatology and STD, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.
Manas ChatterjeeArmed Forces Medical Services and Consultant Dermatologist, Base Hospital, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi, India.
Vishal GuptaDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Sujay KhandpurDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Geeti KhullarDepartment of Dermatology and STD, Lady Hardinge Medical College, Delhi, India.
Seetharam Anjaneyulu KolalapudiDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, GSL Medical College, Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Sheetanshu KumarDepartment of Dermatology and STD, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India.
Shekhar NeemaDepartment of Dermatology, Base Hospital, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Deepika PandhiDepartment of Dermatology and STD, University College of Medical Sciences and GTBH, Delhi, India.
Shital PoojaryDepartment of Dermatology, K. J. Somaiya Medical College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Reena RaiDepartment of Dermatology, PSG Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.
Murlidhar RajagopalanDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology at Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Raghavendra RaoDepartment of Dermatology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Karnataka, India.
Bela ShahDepartment of Dermatology, B. J. Medical College, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
Archana SingalDepartment of Dermatology and STD, University College of Medical Sciences and GTBH, Delhi, India.
Vishal ThakurDepartment of Dermatology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bathinda, Punjab, India.
Keshavamurthy VinayDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Ashutosh AggrawalDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Arka DeDepartment of Hepatology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Soham MukherjeeDepartment of Endocrinology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Shankar PrinjaDepartment of Community Medicine, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Rahul MahajanDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Sanjeev HandaDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology and Leprology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pemphigus is an autoimmune blistering disorder characterized by the presence of intraepidermal blisters and erosions, primarily affecting the mucosa and/or skin. There are no established Indian guidelines for the management of pemphigus, and Western guidelines cannot be directly applied due to differences in clinicodemographic profiles, comorbidities, and resource limitations. These guidelines aim to provide Indian dermatologists with evidence-based and consensus-driven recommendations for the management of pemphigus vulgaris (PV) and pemphigus foliaceous (PF), taking into account the unique challenges posed by the Indian healthcare setting. The guidelines focus on the comprehensive management of PV and PF, addressing diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, and follow-up. It is intended for dermatologists working in both outpatient and inpatient settings across India. The first draft of the guidelines was prepared by the writing group and then reviewed by 19 national experts in pemphigus management, including inputs from allied specialties. Areas with limited evidence or anticipated variation in recommendations were subjected to rounds of voting, with responses categorized as "strongly agree," "agree," "neutral," "disagree," or "strongly disagree." Suggestions were incorporated, and statements were revised until a mean agreement score of 4 or higher was reached across 16 key areas after four voting rounds. These guidelines offer a structured approach to managing pemphigus in India, addressing the need for region-specific recommendations that account for unique challenges such as resource constraints and specific comorbidities in Indian patients. They serve as a valuable resource for dermatologists treating pemphigus in a range of clinical settings.

Indexed as

Adjuvant therapyantibody levelsclinical assessmentclinical practiceclinical relapseconsensus statementcorticosteroidsdiagnosisimmunosuppressantsIndian treatment guidelineslaboratory investigationspatient managementpeculiarity of pemphigus in Indiapemphiguspemphigus foliaceuspemphigus vulgarisrituximabsafety monitoringscreeningsystemic therapytapering scheduletreatment efficacy

Identifiers

PMID39850690
PMCPMC11753534

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.