Becx-Bleumink M
Leprosy Control Division, All Africa Leprosy and Rehabilitation Centre (ALERT), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 1991 Jun;59(2):292-303.
This paper reports on the experience with classification of patients at the All-Africa Leprosy and Rehabilitation Training Centre (ALERT) in the Shoa Province in Ethiopia. Classification on clinical grounds is compared with classification which is primarily based on the result of skin-smear examinations. In addition, possible alternative clinical methods for the allocation of patients to the multidrug therapy (MDT) regimens are discussed. The analysis includes 1525 new patients. In 730 patients classified clinically as paucibacillary (PB), this classification was not confirmed by skin-smear results in only 1.5%; whereas in 795 patients classified clinically as multibacillary (MB), the classification was not confirmed in 21.1%. Possible reasons, notably for the latter discrepancy, are discussed. Based on an assessment of the correctness of the diagnosis and the most probable classification, it was found that if classification had been based on the skin-smear results, 9.3% of the 795 patients classified as MB would have been classified incorrectly as PB. Classification based on clinical signs resulted in incorrect classification, MB instead of PB, of 8.7% of the 795 patients. Over-classification of MB patients, which was found to be supervisor related, is open to improvement by a strict application of clinical criteria for classification. The experience in the ALERT leprosy control program shows that classification which is based on clinical signs may, in particular, result in some PB patients being classified as MB, while classification based on the results of skin-smear examinations is more likely to result in some MB patients being classified as PB. It was concluded that, provided a number of requirements aimed at limiting the number of misclassified patients are introduced, patients can be classified based on clinical signs and, hence, in the absence of skin-smear services for routine classification purposes.
本文报告了埃塞俄比亚绍阿省全非洲麻风病与康复培训中心(ALERT)对患者进行分类的经验。将基于临床依据的分类与主要基于皮肤涂片检查结果的分类进行了比较。此外,还讨论了将患者分配至多药疗法(MDT)方案的可能替代临床方法。分析纳入了1525名新患者。在730名临床分类为少菌型(PB)的患者中,仅1.5%的患者皮肤涂片结果未证实该分类;而在795名临床分类为多菌型(MB)的患者中,21.1%的患者分类未得到证实。讨论了造成差异的可能原因,尤其是后者。基于对诊断正确性和最可能分类的评估,发现如果根据皮肤涂片结果进行分类,795名分类为MB型的患者中有9.3%会被错误分类为PB型。基于临床体征的分类导致795名患者中有8.7%被错误分类为MB型而非PB型。发现多菌型患者的过度分类与督导有关,通过严格应用临床分类标准可加以改进。ALERT麻风病控制项目的经验表明,基于临床体征的分类可能尤其会导致一些PB型患者被分类为MB型,而基于皮肤涂片检查结果的分类更可能导致一些MB型患者被分类为PB型。得出的结论是,只要引入一些旨在限制错误分类患者数量的要求,就可以基于临床体征对患者进行分类,因此,在没有用于常规分类目的的皮肤涂片服务的情况下也可行。