Abstract

IntroductionTo compare clinical, radiological and haematological manifestations among newly diagnosed smear positive tuberculosis patients between Group I (Elderly >60 yrs) and Group II (Younger age between 13 and 60 years).MethodologyThis was a hospital-based cross-sectional study conducted at the out-patient department of pulmonary medicine, between March 2014 and December 2017. There were 61 patients in Group I (Elderly > 60 yrs) and 110 patients in Group II (Younger age between 13 and 60 years). Continuous variables were compared using student’s t-test and Mann-Whitney test. Chi square test and Fischer test was used for analysing categorical variables. All statistics were two-tailed, and a p-value of 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.ResultsThe mean age for Group I (Elderly >60 yrs) was 65 ± 2 years and for the Group II (Younger age between 13 and 60 years) was 40 ± 1 years. There was a statistically significant association of cavitation with infiltrates (p = 0.007) in younger age group. Bilateral multiple zone (48, 64.86%) involvements were commonly observed in both the age groups. There was no significant difference between two groups with regard to haematological and clinical parameters.ConclusionWe did not find any difference in the presentation of tuberculosis in both the groups. Radiologically, there was more of cavitating lesion in younger age group. So, they should be isolated and followed up at regular intervals.

Highlights

  • To compare clinical, radiological and haematological manifestations among newly diagnosed smear positive tuberculosis patients between Group I (Elderly >60 yrs) and Group II (Younger age between 13 and 60 years)

  • We did not find any difference in the presentation of tuberculosis in both the groups

  • 61 (60%) patients were in younger age group and 40 (40%) were in the elderly group and there was no statistically significant association observed between the groups (p > 0.05)

Read more

Summary

Methodology

All statistics were two-tailed, and a p-value of 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant

Results
Conclusion
Study design
Discussion
Conclusions
Disclosures
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call