{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.035819430814524045, 'fraction_numerical': 0.030912659470068694, 'mean_word_length': 4.9273255813953485, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Prevalence of disability among leprosy patients and effectiveness of leprosy reaction services with standard prednisolone treatment at field level in an endemic country--some data from joint leprosy research collaboration in Myanmar].

Prevalence of disability among leprosy patients and effectiveness of standard predonisolone treatment for leprosy reaction at field level in some place of Myanmar are shown in this paper as results of joint leprosy research collaboration. WHO disability grading was measured for all newly registered leprosy patients through 2007 in 5 selected townships of Ayeyarwaddy Division, with the results of G0 = 66.3%, GI = 18.9%, GII = 14.7% (N = 95). The cross-sectional disability survey at selected 9 townships in Mandalay, Sagaing and Magway Division for all registered patients who had completed WHO/MDT done by JICA project in 2003/4 showed G0 = 62.5%, GI = 2.4%, GII = 35.1% (N = 10,528). From these two data, it is supposed that considerable number of patients with G1 at registered time developed worsening of disability from G1 to G2. Proportion of G0 also reduced a little bit in patients who completed WHO/MDT. Early detection and proper treatment of leprosy reaction are one of the main issues of prevention of disability. Effectiveness of leprosy reaction services were evaluated at Mandalay Special Skin Clinic, where WHO fixed regimen of prednisolone were given as routine service. 100 cases were evaluated who developed leprosy reactions from 1st December 2007 to 31st December 2008 and identified severe reaction who needed oral prednisolone treatment. Evaluation criteria of "effective" was defined as "no more signs and symptoms of reactions were present after treatment. And "less effective" was defined as "more than one of signs and symptoms were still remained after treatment". Over all "effective" was 36 (36%) and "less effective" was 64 (64%). It was also found that rates of improvement of nerve functions, either in sensory or in motor, were little after the standard treatment.