02819nas a2200469   4500000000100000008004100001260001700042653001500059653001000074653002100084653001000105653002100115653002600136653001100162653001100173653001000184653001100194653002000205653001200225653000900237653001600246653002800262653001500290653002100305653002100326100001400347700002000361700001400381700001500395700001500410700001700425700001300442700002200455700001500477700001800492245005200510300001100562490000700573050003200580520172300612022001402335       1998                            d  c1998 Apr-Jun10aAdolescent10aAdult10aAge Distribution10aChild10aChild, Preschool10aEpidemiologic Methods10aFemale10aHumans10aIndia10aInfant10aInfant, Newborn10aleprosy10aMale10aMiddle Aged10aPopulation Surveillance10aPrevalence10aRural Population10aSex Distribution1 aGupte M D1 aVallishayee R S1 aAhmed T H1 aPrince J S1 aBritto R L1 aRathinaraj B1 aElango N1 aBalasubramanyam S1 aNagaraju B1 aArockiasamy J00aStudies on rapid assessment methods in leprosy.  a165-770 v70  aInfolep Library - available3 a<p>A study was undertaken in Pudukottai district, Tamilnadu, India to test rapid assessment methods: viz (i) sample surveys with lower coverages for clinical examination in estimating the disease problem in the community, (ii) utility of registered case prevalence for estimating the actual prevalence in a given area, (iii) leprosy in school-going children and its utility in estimating leprosy prevalence in the community, and (iv) information on disability and smear positivity in estimating leprosy prevalence; and develop correction factors for estimating leprosy situation. A sample of 23 clusters from 582 clusters of contiguous villages and hamlets was further divided into two random sub-samples for two surveys with differing coverages. One team covered nine clusters comprising 34 villages with a population of 17,562 and examined 15,596 with a population of 26,927 and examined 16,622 (62%) persons for leprosy. The results showed that: (i) leprosy sample surveys with lowered coverages would tend to miss valuable information, in terms of quality and quantity; (ii) from 'known case' registers, to estimate the true burden of leprosy disease and to monitor its trend over time is inadequate; (iii) school surveys are of limited value for estimating the disease burden in the community or to monitor its trend over time; (iv) the number of smear-positive cases is to small to serve as an indicator for the total case load in the community; and (v) the prevalence of active disease and that of grade 2 disability in the community are poorly correlated. Reliable methods other than those used here need to be developed for evaluation and monitoring of the disease burden particularly in the post-MDT era.</p>  a0254-9395