Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
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.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11149824 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ijd.ijd_1071_23 | DOI Listing |