Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 88133

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionAcknowledgementReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2021 | Month : August | Volume : 15 | Issue : 8 | Page : DC11 - DC15 Full Version

Effectiveness of Sabouraud’s Dextrose Agar and Dermatophyte Test Medium in Detection of Candidiasis and Dermatophytosis in Superficial Skin Lesion


Published: August 1, 2021 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2021/49630.15252
V Geethalakshmi, KA Jasmine, Anu P John, Priya Prathap

1. Assistant Professor, Department of Microbiology, Amala Institute of Medical Sciences, Thrissur, Kerala, India. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Microbiology, Government Medical College, Manjeri, Malappuram, Kerala, India. 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Microbiology, Government Medical College, Thrissur, Kerala, India. 4. Additional Professor, Department of Dermatology and Venerology, Government Medical College, Thrissur, Kerala, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. KA Jasmine,
Associate Professor, Department of Microbiology, Government Medical College, Manjeri, Malappuram-676121, Kerala, India.
E-mail: jasminedrsalim@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: As time evolves fungal infections have increased its prevalence. Among the fungal infections, superficial fungal infections are the most common type. They can be either chronic or recurrent, therefore simple incidence figures are not the most useful means of understanding the burden of disease.

Aim: Isolation and identification of pathogenic fungi from clinically suspected cases of dermatophytosis and candidiasis of skin, also to compare two media used in isolation of the fungus.

Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted over a period of one year, clinically suspected cases of dermatophyte infection and candidiasis who attended the Outpatient Department of Dermatology and Venereology Government Medical College, Thrissur, Kerala, India, were included randomly in the study. Sample size was taken as 150. Samples were collected from clinically suspected cases of dermatophytic infections and candidiasis of skin and was transported to the Microbiology Department in sterile bottles. Direct examination under KOH (Potassium hydroxide) solution was done. Culture of these samples on Sabouraud’s Dextrose Agar (SDA) with chloramphenicol/gentamycin and Dermatophyte Test Medium (DTM) was analysed. Statistical analysis was done using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software.

Results: Trichophyton mentagrophytes was the commonest isolate 57%, followed by Trichophyton rubrum 27%. Out of six clinically suspected cases of candidiasis, no organism was isolated in the cultures. Almost all dermatophytes isolated were grown in DTM within one week of incubation except Trichophyton rubrum which appeared in the second week, while in SDA only 31% of isolates were grown. Direct smear positivity was found in 95% of the cases, while culture positivity was 45%. All isolates were grown in DTM while 31% were grown in SDA.

Conclusion: Trichophyton mentagrophytes was the commonest species isolated. The next common isolate was Trichophyton rubrum. DTM was more useful as a screening medium as opposed SDA as identification medium and the isolation is more rapid.

Keywords

Microsporum canis, Trichophyton mentagrophytes, Trichophyton soudanense, Trichophyton rubrum, Trichophyton verrucosum

Fungal infections have been affecting mankind from the time immemorial. They are quite widespread and have affected growing number of people in recent years. Dermatophytosis is one of the earliest known fungal infections and is very common throughout the world (1). The term dermatophyte literally means “skin plants” (2). It is estimated that superficial fungal infections affect roughly 20-25% of the world population (3). Evolutionary development towards an accommodating host parasite relationship is present among dermatophytes which is absent among other fungal agents causing human disease (4). The clinical importance of identifying species of dermatophyte is to find out the probable source of infection. Also, there are some prognostic considerations as well. The anthrapophilic group causes chronic infection which may be difficult to cure. The zoophilic and geophilic dermatophytes cause inflammatory lesions which easily respond to therapy and occasionally spontaneously heal (5). The dermatophytes have distinct clinical manifestation in different parts of the body. Each focus of infection is due to local inoculation. The inflammation is seen maximum at the advancing margins leaving central area with some clearing. The diagnosis of dermatophytosis is based on combination of clinical observation supplemented by laboratory investigation. The history of patient is essential regarding age, sex, occupation, duration of illness, history of any treatment taken and any associated disease. In the laboratory, diagnosis depends on demonstration of causative pathogens in tissue by microscopy and isolation of the fungus in culture (6). In this study, the culture was done in SDA and DTM for a better isolation of the pathogen.

The present study was done to isolate and identify most common dermatophyte species from the clinical isolates obtained from Thrissur Medical College dermatology department 2017-2018 and to compare the effectiveness of two culture media used for isolation.

Material and Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted over a period of one year (June 2017-June 2018). Clinically, suspected cases of dermatophyte infection and candidiasis who attended the Outpatient Department of Dermatology and Venereology Government Medical College, Thrissur, Kerala, India, were included randomly in the study. An Institutional Review Board (IRB) clearance was obtained for the study, informed consent was taken before sample collection from the patient.

Sample size calculation: Sample size was calculated on the formula Zα2p (100-p)/d2 {d=10-20% of p}, and it was obtained as 150.

Inclusion criteria: Patients with clinical diagnosis of superficial dermatophytic infections and candidiasis of skin and patients with tinea versicolor and fungal infections of hair and nails (Table/Fig 1), (Table/Fig 2).Only those with clinical findings at the outpatient department were included in the study and those who were not within the inclusion criteria were excluded.

A detailed history was taken from all 150 patients using a preset proforma which included age, sex, occupation, duration of illness, history of any treatment taken and any associated disease. The infected part was cleaned with 70% alcohol to remove the contaminants on the surface. The specimens were collected in a sterile container. The skin scrapings were obtained from the active edge of the lesion. Direct microscopy (7),(8) was done by adding 10% KOH to a small portion of skin scraping on a clean glass slide (Table/Fig 3). The rest of the specimen was inoculated in SDA and DTM.

1. Sabouraud’s Dextrose Agar (SDA) with Chloramphenicol and Cycloheximide (Actidione)

The slopes and agar plates were inoculated using a flame sterilised bent wire. SDA culture tubes were incubated at room temperature for four weeks. Daily observation of all the inoculated culture tubes were made and tubes were considered negative if there was no fungal growth even after four weeks of incubation (7). Colonies were studied and details regarding the morphology of the colony, rate of growth and pigment production were recorded. Microscopic characteristics were studied by examining Lactophenol Cotton Blue (LPCB) preparation after teasing a tiny bit of the growth with teasing needle and putting a coverslip (Table/Fig 4), (Table/Fig 5), (Table/Fig 6).

2. Dermatophyte Test Medium (DTM) for Dermatophytes

Specimen was inoculated in the DTM (Table/Fig 7), (Table/Fig 8)a,b. Growth of a dermatophyte in DTM was indicated by a change in colour, yellow to red (9). The species of the dermatophytes were identified by noting the characteristic features. Urease test was done to identify Trichophyton spp. For morphological identification of all isolates, slide culture technique was performed.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was done using SPSS software. Result were obtained on following categories i.e.,; predominant type, age group, gender difference, type of organism, comparison of growth on two media.

Results

Out of 150 samples studied the following results were obtained. Direct smear positivity was found in 143 (95%) of the cases, while culture positivity in 67 (45%) cases. There was a female preponderance in this study with female to male ratio being 1.3:1. Maximum incidence was in the age group 21-40 years, (31.3) and the least incidence was seen in age group above 61 years, 21 (14%) (Table/Fig 9).

Occupational profile of all the patients showed that the largest group in this study consisted of housewives, 42 (28%) followed by manual labourers, 39 (26%). The next larger group consisted of students, 35 (23%). In other groups, 10 (7%) were constituting retired persons, old age people (Table/Fig 9).

Tinea corporis, 86 (57%) was the most common clinical type observed in the study. The second most common was the Tinea cruris with an incidence of about 44 (29%). Tinea corporis was more common in females 57 (38%) while tinea cruris was in males 25 (16%) (Table/Fig 10).

Out of 150 cases, only 41 cases were recurrent (27%) of the study population. Major bulk of the study population consisted of new cases 109 (73%). Out of the total, 50% (n=75) were on treatment which included recurrent cases.

Out of 67 positive samples grown, Trichophyton mentagrophytes was the commonest isolate 38 (57%) followed by Trichophyton rubrum 18 (27%). Out of six clinically suspected cases of candidiasis no organism was isolated in the cultures. Out of the 38 T. mentagrophytes isolates there were seven isolates of T. mentagrophytes var interdigitale and out of 18 isolates of T. rubrum, two were melanocyte variant which produced black pigment rather than the red pigment of T. rubrum. No organism was isolated in tinea barbae. Out of the two isolates from tinea mannum, one was Trichophyton mentagrophytes and the other isolate was Trichophyton tonsurans (Table/Fig 11).

Out of 150 samples, 66 samples (44%) yielded positive in both direct microscopy and culture, 77 (51.3%) yielded positive in direct microscopy alone. One case was culture positive alone and 6 (4%) were negative for both direct microscopy and culture. Almost all dermatophytes isolated were grown in DTM within one week of incubation except Trichophyton rubrum which appeared in the second week. In SDA only, 31% of isolates were grown taking a minimum of 3-4 weeks. DTM was superior to SDA in isolation of dermatophytes from clinical samples in view of early isolation of the organism as 38 isolates T. mentagrophytes, all were grown in DTM and only 27 isolates were positive in SDA. Colony characteristics were better appreciated in SDA cultures (Table/Fig 12).

Discussion

The diagnosis of dermatophytosis is based on combination of clinical observation supplemented by laboratory investigation. In the laboratory, diagnosis depends on demonstration of causative pathogens in tissue by microscopy and isolation of the fungus in culture. Routine culture media used is SDA. DTM is a selective medium used in medical mycology for isolation of dermatophytes. Both media was used in the present study for better isolation of species from clinical samples. In the present study, maximum incidence was in the age group 21-40 years which constitutes about 47 (31.3%). This is closely followed by the age group 41-60 which constitutes about 46 (30%). In all age groups, the result shows a female predominance. These were in accordance with the results of the studies conducted by Hanumanthappa H and Patel P et al., (10),(11).

The largest group in this study consisted of housewives 42 (28%) followed by manual labourers and students. Interestingly, it was not in accordance with the previous study, which showed a predominance of infection in manual labourers (10). This may be because of a higher incidence in female population than male population obtained in this study.

Tinea corporis 86 (57%) was the most common clinical type observed in the study. Candidiasis constituted 6 (4%) of the total cases. This was in accordance with the studies of Hanumanthappa H et al., in which tinea corporis (33.3%) was the commonest clinical type (10). In a cross-sectional study in Chennai by Kumar KA et al., tinea corporis accounted for 70.8% which formed the majority of clinical presentations (12). The studies by Sahia S et al., Sen SS and Rasul ES, had reported 45%, and 51% of cases of tinea corporis respectively (13),(14). Tinea cruris 44 (29%) was the next common clinical type. This was in accordance with above studies (12),(13),(14). Tinea pedis was among the least common clinical type according to the present study. This may be because the incidence of tinea pedis was higher in any population wearing occlusive shoes. Infected patients were from civilised, urban areas. Permanent retention of fungus laden scales in the socks is an important cause of tinea pedis under hot and humid climate. The high incidence of Tinea corporis and Tinea cruris as concluded from this study was probably due to its symptomatic nature (pruritis) which leads the patient to seek medical advice.

Out of 150 samples, 66 samples (44%) yielded positive in both direct microscopy and culture, 77 (51%) yielded positive result in direct microscopy alone. This was comparable with previous studies (10),(11),(15). All these studies highlighted the importance of both direct microscopy and culture in definitive diagnosis of fungal infection (Table/Fig 13) (10),(11),(15).

Trichophyton mentagrophytes was the commonest isolate 38 (57%) followed by Trichophyton rubrum 18 (27%). This was in accordance with the studies by Putta SD et al., Kolhapur in which isolated dermatophytes T.mentagrophyes was the most common isolate contributing 37.74%, followed by T.tonsurans 28.30% and T.rubrum 24.53% (15). Bhatia VK and Sharma PC, had similar finding, T.mentagrophytes was most common isolate though they found different isolation rate (16). Present study observed other isolates like Trichophyton soudanense, T.verrucosum and M.canis though rate of isolation was very less and thus not included in the study. Also, there was no Epidermophyton spp. grown.

Most remarkable observation in this study was T.mentagrophytes as the most common aetiological agent among dermatophytes. In this study, it could be noted that all dermatophytes isolated were grown in DTM within one week of incubation except Trichophyton rubrum which appeared in the second week, while in SDA only 31% of isolates were grown. The maximum incubation period was more than a week for SDA whereas DTM gave positive results on culture within a week of inoculation. SDA requires to be incubated at least for four weeks before reporting as negative. Several studies have included both the media for isolation (10),(17).

Advantage of DTM is that positive results are available within seven days of incubation. In the case of SDA the colony characteristics can be well made out.

Limitation(s)

The disadvantage of DTM is that the colony characteristics such as pigmentation cannot be made out in the media, also some contaminants were grown showing a colour change. In SDA the colony takes more than a week to grow than DTM.

Conclusion

Present study found out that DTM was more useful as a general screening medium as opposed to an identification medium and the isolation of dermatophytes was rapid when compared to SDA. However it is recommended that, tests to be performed on growth from SDA for complete identification.

Acknowledgement

The support provided by teaching and non teaching laboratory staff of Department of Dermatology and Venereology and Department of Microbiology, Government Medical College, Thrissur, Kerala, India is gratefully acknowledged.

References

1.
Ellaway R, Masters K. E-Learning in Medical Education Teaching and Learning. AMEE Guides in Medical Education. 2008.
2.
Masic I. E-Learning as New Method of Medical Education. Acta Informatica Medica. 2008;16(2):102. Doi: 10.5455/aim.2008.16.102-117. [crossref] [PubMed]
3.
Schneider M, Binder T. E-Learning in medicine: Current status and future developments. Hamdan Medical Journal. 2019;12(4):147. Doi: 10.4103/hmj.hmj_74_19. [crossref]
4.
Almarzooq Z, Lopes M, Kochar A. Virtual Learning during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Disruptive Technology in Graduate Medical Education. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2020. Doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.015. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Dhawan S. Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems. 2020;49(1):05-22. Doi: 10.1177/0047239520934018. [crossref] [PubMed]
6.
Potaliya P, Ghatak S. New trends in medical education during and post COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Medical and Health Sciences. 2020;2(3). Doi: 10.24018/ejmed.2020.2.3.275. [crossref]
7.
Arkorful V, Abaidoo N. The role of e-learning, the advantages and disadvantages of its adoption in Higher Education. International Journal of Education and Research. 2014;2(12).
8.
Dhir SK, Verma D, Batta M, Mishra D. E-learning in medical education in India. Indian Pediatrics. 2017;54(10):871-77. Doi: 10.1007/s13312-017-1152-9. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Choules AP. The use of e-learning in medical education: A review of the current situation. Postgraduate Medical Journal. 2007;83(978):212-16. Doi: 10.1136/pgmj.2006.054189. [crossref] [PubMed]
10.
George PP, Papachristou N, Belisario JM, Wang W, Wark PA, Cotic Z, et al. Online eLearning for undergraduates in health professions: A systematic review of the impact on knowledge, skills, attitudes and satisfaction. Journal of Global Health. 2014;4(1). Doi: 10.7189/jogh.04.010406. [crossref]
11.
Vaona A, Banzi R, Kwag KH, Rigon G, Cereda D, Pecoraro V, et al. E-learning for health professionals. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2018. Doi: 10.1002/14651858.cd011736.pub2. [crossref] [PubMed]
12.
Back DA, Behringer F, Haberstroh N, Ehlers JP, Sostmann K, Peters H. Learning management system and e-learning tools: An experience of medical students’ usage and expectations. International Journal of Medical Education. 2016;7:267-73. Doi: 10.5116/ijme.57a5.f0f5. [crossref] [PubMed]
13.
Al-Shorbaji N, Atun R, Car J, Majeed A, Wheeler E. E-learning for undergraduate health professional education- A systematic review informing a radical transformation of health workforce development. 2015.
14.
Izadi N. Occupational Health Hazards among Health Care Workers. Public Health Open Access. 2018;2(1). Doi: 10.23880/phoa-16000120. [crossref]
15.
Sheppard AL, Wolffsohn JS. Digital eye strain: Prevalence, measurement and amelioration. BMJ Open Ophthalmology. 2018;3(1):e000146. Doi: 10.1136/bmjophth-2018-000146. [crossref] [PubMed]
16.
Pei L, Wu H. Does online learning work better than offline learning in undergraduate medical education? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Educ Online. 2019;24(1):1666538. [crossref] [PubMed]
17.
Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The impact of E-Learning in medical education. Academic Medicine. 2006;81(3):207-12. [crossref] [PubMed]
18.
Felder E, Fauler M, Geiler S. Introducing e-learning/teaching in a physiology course for medical students: Acceptance by students and subjective effect on learning. Advances in Physiology Education. 2013;37(4):337-42. [crossref] [PubMed]
19.
Guy R, Byrne B, Dobos M. Optional anatomy and physiology e-learning resources: Student access, learning approaches, and academic outcomes. Advances in Physiology Education. 2018;42(1):43-49. Doi: 10.1152/advan.00007.2017. [crossref] [PubMed]
20.
Regmi K, Jones L. A systematic review of the factors- enablers and barriers- affecting e-learning in health sciences education. BMC Medical Education. 2020;20(1):91. [crossref] [PubMed]
21.
Harwood KJ, McDonald PL, Butler JT, Drago D, Schlumpf KS. Comparing student outcomes in traditional vs intensive, online graduate programs in health professional education. BMC Medical Education. 2018;18(1):240. [crossref] [PubMed]
22.
Munro V, Morello A, Oster C, Redmond C, Vnuk A, Lennon S, et al. E-learning for self-management support: Introducing blended learning for graduate students- A cohort study. BMC Medical Education. 2018;18(1):219. [crossref] [PubMed]
23.
Okaz AA. Integrating blended learning in higher education. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015;186:600-03. [crossref]
24.
Turk B, Ertl S, Wong G, Wadowski PP, Löffler-Stastka H. Does case-based blended-learning expedite the transfer of declarative knowledge to procedural knowledge in practice? BMC Medical Education. 2019;19(1);447. [crossref] [PubMed]
25.
Barteit S, Guzek D, Jahn A, Bärnighausen T, Jorge MM, Neuhann F. Evaluation of e-learning for medical education in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Computers & Education. 2020;145:103726. Doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103726. [crossref] [PubMed]
26.
Olum R, Atulinda L, Kigozi E, Nassozi DR, Mulekwa A, Bongomin F, Kiguli S. Medical education and E-Learning during COVID-19 pandemic: Awareness, attitudes, preferences, and barriers among undergraduate medicine and nursing students at Makerere University, Uganda. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2020;7:2382120520973212. Doi: 10.1177/2382120520973212. PMID: 33283049; PMCID: PMC7682244. [crossref] [PubMed]
27.
Kaur N, Dwivedi D, Arora J, Gandhi A. Study of the effectiveness of e-learning to conventional teaching in medical undergraduates amid COVID-19 pandemic. National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy and Pharmacology. 2020;10(7):1. Doi: 10.5455/njppp.2020.10.04096202028042020. [crossref]
28.
Al-Balas M, Al-Balas HI, Jaber HM, Obeidat K, Al-Balas H, Aborajooh EA, et al. Distance learning in clinical medical education amid COVID-19 pandemic in Jordan: Current situation, challenges, and perspectives. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(1):341. Doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02257-4. Erratum in: BMC Med Educ. 2020 Dec 16;20(1):513. PMID: 33008392; PMCID: PMC7530879. [crossref] [PubMed]
29.
Frehywot S, Vovides Y, Talib Z, Mikhail N, Ross H, Wohltjen H, et al. E-learning in medical education in resource constrained low- and middle-income countries. Human Resources for Health. 2013;11(1). Doi: 10.1186/1478-4491-11-4. [crossref] [PubMed]
30.
Obi IE, Charles-Okoli AN, Agunwa CC, Omotowo BI, Ndu AC, Agwu-Umahi OR. E-learning readiness from perspectives of medical students: A survey in Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice. 2018;21(3). Doi: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_108_17.
31.
Ruggeri K, Farrington C, Brayne C. A Global model for effective use and evaluation of e-learning in health. Telemedicine and e-Health. 2013;19(4):312-21. Doi: 10.1089/tmj.2012.0175. [crossref] [PubMed]
32.
Cecilio-Fernandes D, Parisi MCR, Santos TM, Sandars J. The COVID-19 pandemic and the challenge of using technology for medical education in low and middle income countries. MedEdPublish. 2020;9(1). Doi: 10.15694/mep.2020.000074.1. [crossref]
33.
Kim S. The Future of e-Learning in medical education: Current trend and future opportunity. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions. 2006;3(3):3. Doi: 10.3352/jeehp.2006.3.3. [crossref] [PubMed]
34.
Kim KJ, Kim G. Development of e-learning in medical education: 10 years’ experience of Korean medical schools. Korean Journal of Medical Education. 2019;31(3):205-14. Doi: 10.3946/kjme.2019.131. [crossref] [PubMed]
35.
Haworth R. Personal learning environments: A solution for self-directed learners. Tech Trends. 2016;60(4):359-64. Doi:10.1007/s11528-016-0074-z. [crossref]

DOI and Others

10.7860/JCDR/2021/49630.15252

Date of Submission: Mar 26, 2021
Date of Peer Review: May 11, 2021
Date of Acceptance: Jun 26, 2021
Date of Publishing: Aug 01, 2021

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Mar 27, 2021
• Manual Googling: Jun 26, 2021
• iThenticate Software: Jul 31, 2021 (14%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com