↓ Skip to main content

Criteria for diagnosis of pure neural leprosy

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurology, July 2003
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
Title
Criteria for diagnosis of pure neural leprosy
Published in
Journal of Neurology, July 2003
DOI 10.1007/s00415-003-1081-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Márcia R. Jardim, Sérgio L. G. Antunes, Adalberto R. Santos, Osvaldo J. M. Nascimento, Jose Augusto C. Nery, Anna M. Sales, Ximena Illarramendi, Nádia Duppre, Leila Chimelli, Elizabeth P. Sampaio, Euzenir P. N. Sarno

Abstract

The clinical diagnosis of pure neural leprosy (PNL) remains a public health care problem mainly because skin lesions-the cardinal features of leprosy-are always absent.Moreover, the identification of the leprosy bacillus is not easily achieved even when a nerve biopsy can be performed. In an attempt to reach a reliable PNL diagnosis in patients referred to our Leprosy Outpatient Clinic, this study employed a variety of criteria. The nerve biopsies performed on the 67 individuals whose clinical, neurological, and electrophysiological examination findings strongly suggested peripheral neuropathy were submitted to M. leprae identification via a polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Mononeuropathy multiplex was the most frequent clinical and electrophysiological pattern of nerve dysfunction, while sensory impairment occurred in 89% of all cases and motor dysfunction in 81%. Axonal neuropathy was the predominant electrophysiological finding, while the histopathological nerve study showed epithelioid granuloma in 14% of the patients, acid fast bacilli in 16%, and nonspecific inflammatory infiltrate and/or fibrosis in 39%. PCR for M. leprae was positive in 47% of the nerve biopsy samples (n=23). PCR, in conjunction with clinical and neurological examination results, can be a powerful tool in attempting to identify and confirm a PNL diagnosis.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 4 6%
Unknown 68 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Student > Postgraduate 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Master 5 7%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 18 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 18 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 August 2015.
All research outputs
#7,451,584
of 22,780,967 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#1,769
of 4,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,641
of 48,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#3
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,967 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,471 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 48,615 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.