HomeAboutusEditorial BoardCurrent issuearchivesSearch articlesInstructions for authorsSubscription detailsAdvertise

  Login  | Users online: 1810

   Ahead of print articles    Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size  

ORIGINAL ARTICLE Table of Contents   
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 37  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 240-251
Incidence Rate of Acute Encephalitis Syndrome without Specific Treatment in India and Nepal

Department of Neurology, Osmania Medical College/ Niloufer Hospital/Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, India

Correspondence Address:
Nagabhushana Rao Potharaju
10-3-185, St. John's Road, Secunderabad, Andhra Pradesh - 500025
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0970-0218.103473

Rights and Permissions

Background: A performance target (PT) for the incidence rate (IR) of acute encephalitis syndrome (AES) was not defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) due to lack of data. There is no specific treatment for ~90% of the AES cases. Objectives: (1) To determine the IR of AES not having specific treatment (AESn) in two countries, India and Nepal. (2) To suggest the PT. Subjects and Methods: This was a record-based study of the entire population of India and Nepal from 1978 to 2011. The WHO definition was used for inclusion of cases. Cases that had specific treatment were excluded. IR was calculated per 100,000 population per annum. Forecast IR was generated from 2010 to 2013 using time-series analysis. Results: There were 165,461 cases from 1978 to 2011, of which 125,030 cases were from India and 40,431 were from Nepal. The mean IR of India was 0.42 (s 0.24) and that of Nepal was 5.23 (s 3.03). IRs of 2010 and 2011 of India and that of 2011 of Nepal were closer to the mean IR rather than the forecast IR. IR of 2010 of Nepal was closer to the forecast IR. The forecast IR for India for 2012 was 0.49 (0.19-1.06), for 2013 was 0.42 (0.15-0.97) and for Nepal for both 2012 and 2013 was 5.62 (1.53-15.05). Conclusions: IRs were considerably different for India and Nepal. Using the current mean IR as PT for the next year was simple and practical. Using forecasting was complex and, less frequently, useful.

Print this article  Email this article

  Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
  Related articles
   Citation Manager
  Access Statistics
   Reader Comments
   Email Alert *
   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded497    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 13    

Recommend this journal


  Sitemap | What's New | Copyright and Disclaimer | Privacy Notice
  2007 - Indian Journal of Community Medicine | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
  Online since 15th September, 2007