Quality of Life Burden in Tinea (Dermatophytosis) Patients: A Narrative Review

3.2 Domains of life most affected

Across nearly all studies reviewed, the “symptoms and feelings” domain — capturing itching, soreness, and embarrassment — was the most heavily affected, with impairment reported in 67–97% of patients depending on the cohort.^11,17,18 “Work and school” and “treatment-related” domains were consistently the next most impaired, reported in 52–69% and 54–68% of patients respectively;^11,17,18 loss of work or study days was particularly pronounced among male patients.^12,23 “Personal relationships” and “sexual difficulties” domains, while less uniformly impaired, were notably worse in patients with tinea cruris and other genital or groin involvement, reflecting the embarrassment associated with lesions in intimate areas.^11,13,23 “Social and leisure activities” and “choice of clothing” were disproportionately affected in patients with extensive or multi-site disease.^15,17 Independent series from Chandigarh and Aligarh similarly identified symptoms/ feelings and daily activities as the most heavily affected domains.^35,36

3.3 Disease duration and chronicity

Duration of illness was the single most consistent predictor of QoL impairment across the reviewed literature. Two independently conducted case–control studies, one in India and one in Bangladesh, found that DLQI scores rose progressively with duration from roughly 6.5 in patients with disease of 6–9 months, to over 16 in those affected for more than a year  and that chronic-disease cases scored significantly higher than non-chronic controls on every DLQI domain (p<0.001).^17,18 Similarly, cohorts of persisting and recurrent dermatophytosis reported markedly elevated mean DLQI scores compared with unselected tinea populations.^13,14 A 385-patient cohort similarly found that the number of prior relapses, alongside duration of illness, was significantly associated with DLQI (p=0.003 and p=0.005, respectively), indicating that a relapsing disease course compounds QoL impairment beyond the effect of duration alone.⁶⁰

3.4 Body-surface-area involvement and lesion count

Body-surface-area (BSA) involvement showed a strong, statistically significant positive correlation with DLQI across almost every study that measured it, including correlation coefficients as high as r=0.91 (p<0.0001) in one series10 and r=0.71–0.90 in others.^15,17,18 A large real-world cohort similarly demonstrated a clear dose–response relationship between increasing lesion count and DLQI, with the greatest impairment in patients with more than five lesions.¹⁹ A 348-patient Aligarh cohort likewise found the number of sites involved and body-surface area both significantly predicted DLQI (p<0.001), and a 294-patient Eastern Indian series found body-surface area significantly associated with QoL impairment.^34,36 A 299-patient Ahmedabad cohort likewise found a significant, if more modest, positive correlation between body-surface area and DLQI (rs=0.251, p<0.05), reinforcing this relationship across differing effect sizes.²³

3.5 Anatomical site of involvement

Site of involvement independently predicted QoL impairment. Simultaneous involvement of both exposed and unexposed body sites produced worse DLQI scores than involvement of either alone in both the Indian and Bangladeshi case–control studies,^17,18 while a large multicentric cohort found facial and trunk/back involvement associated with significantly higher DLQI than their absence (p<0.001 for both).¹⁹ Thigh-fold and gluteal involvement (tinea cruris) was the most common site in a persisting/recurrent dermatophytosis cohort and carried a disproportionate psychosocial burden linked to embarrassment during intimacy.¹³

3.6 Topical steroid misuse

A large northern Indian series of 550 patients found topical steroid abuse in 92.9% of cases (most often clobetasol propionate, used singly or in antifungal–steroid–antibacterial combinations), most commonly recommended by pharmacists rather than dermatologists; steroid abuse was independently and significantly associated with higher DLQI scores (15.28 vs 10.41 in non-abusers, p<0.001), alongside low socioeconomic status, younger age, widespread tinea, and poor hygiene practices.¹⁴ Prescribing surveys elsewhere in the literature confirm that corticosteroid–antifungal combination creams remain in widespread, guideline-discordant use across South Asia, sustaining the atypical, treatment-resistant “tinea incognito” presentation and, by extension, chronicity and QoL impairment.^5,6,24,25 A dermatology OPD cohort likewise reported topical-steroid or native-remedy self-medication in 41.2% of patients prior to presentation, with the highest DLQI scores concentrated in those with the most extensive combined-site involvement.⁶¹

3.7 Socioeconomic status, education, and occupation

Lower income, lower educational attainment, and manual or high-sweat/friction occupations were repeatedly associated with worse QoL. In one series, illiterate patients scored significantly worse than those with tertiary education (16.91 vs 14.34, p=0.001), and those earning under 5,000 rupees monthly scored worse than those earning over 30,000 (16.58 vs 12.95, p=0.027).¹⁴ A large 2,776-patient multicentric cohort similarly found that occupations involving high sweat and friction exposure (manual laborers, drivers, service staff) had the highest DLQI scores, while sedentary indoor occupations and healthcare workers had the lowest (p=0.003).¹⁹ A 425-patient community-based cohort from Kashmir Valley likewise found significantly higher DLQI scores among rural residents and patients of upper-middle socioeconomic status, alongside significant associations with duration, number of sites, body-surface area, and symptom intensity (pruritus, redness, burning) (all p<0.05); DLQI was also significantly higher in women and in patients aged 20–39 years.⁵⁹ A 372-patient Central Gujarat cohort similarly found DLQI significantly associated with hygiene-related practices — including towel-sharing with family members, bathing frequency, and frequency of changing undergarments — as well as geographic residence, religion, and seasonal variation, although no significant association was found with age, gender, educational status, or occupation in that cohort.⁶²

3.8 Financial burden

Several studies quantified financial strain directly. In a 316-patient cohort, 56.6% of patients delayed or interrupted treatment because of cost, 30.7% cut general expenses, 26.2% used savings, 12.9% borrowed money, and 16.1% reduced healthcare spending for other family members; financial burden correlated moderately with DLQI, anxiety, and depression scores.¹⁵ A separate 123-patient study found a mean financial-burden score of 3.43 (of 5) and financial dependency in 26% of patients, with financial burden approaching statistical significance in its association with DLQI (p=0.06).¹⁶ A separate 299-patient Ahmedabad cohort quantified financial strain directly, reporting a mean financial-burden score of 3.46 (SD 1.70) and a mean financial-worry score of 3.66 (SD 1.22), both of which correlated significantly with DLQI, previous treatment cost, and each other (p<0.05); the same cohort found that sexual difficulties, reported by 35.6% of patients, were significantly associated with tinea cruris.²³ A further 120-patient study found a very large or extremely large DLQI effect in 72.5% of patients, with financial burden and financial worry both significantly correlated with DLQI.³⁹

3.9 Psychological comorbidity

Psychological distress was both prevalent and closely linked to QoL impairment. Using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), one study found abnormal anxiety in 21.2% and abnormal depression in 15.8% of chronic dermatophytosis patients, with a high positive correlation between DLQI and anxiety (rho=0.71) and a moderate correlation with depression (rho=0.62).¹⁵ A separate study combining DLQI with the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) and a visual analogue scale for pruritus found significant positive correlations among all three measures (VAS–DLQI r=0.70; DLQI–GHQ-12 r=0.53; VAS–GHQ-12 r=0.58), underscoring itch as a key mediator linking infection to psychological and QoL burden.¹¹ In a 123-patient chronic/recurrent dermatophytosis cohort, mean DLQI reached 21.4±5.6 with an “extremely large effect” in 55.3% of patients, alongside a mean HADS-anxiety score of 10.1±3.6, while separate Chandigarh and Eastern Indian series similarly found high rates of GHQ-12 psychological distress (up to 88.4% and 84.9% of patients, respectively) correlating with DLQI.^34,35,37 A 183-patient rural tertiary-care cohort using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale alongside Beck's Depression Inventory similarly found borderline-to-abnormal anxiety in 17.4% and depression in 11.4% of patients, with the severity of anxiety, depression, and DLQI impairment increasing together in a monotonic pattern.⁶³

3.10 Systemic comorbidity and treatment regimen

The largest cohort reviewed (2,776 patients across 325 Indian centres) found that obesity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hepatic dysfunction, cardiac disorders, and renal disease were each independently associated with significantly worse DLQI scores (all p<0.001), suggesting compounded disease burden in medically vulnerable patients. The same study found that treatment regimen significantly influenced patient-reported QoL, with super-bioavailable itraconazole combined with topical antifungal therapy associated with the most favorable DLQI outcomes compared with itraconazole monotherapy or conventional itraconazole-based regimens (p<0.001).¹⁹

3.11 Age and gender

Findings on age and gender were mixed and, in several individual studies, not statistically significant. Most studies found no significant association between gender and DLQI,^10,11,16,18 though three found modestly higher scores in females — including a 76-patient series spanning multiple dermatophytosis subtypes that reported a statistically significant difference (9.3±5.2 in females vs 7.1±4.7 in males, p=0.038),^13,14,26 and a fourth, 425-patient community-based cohort that likewise found significantly higher DLQI in women,⁵⁹ and one large multicentric study found significantly higher DLQI in adults aged 31–60 years than in those over 60,¹⁹ a community-based cohort found the highest DLQI in patients aged 20–39,⁵⁹ while smaller single-centre studies found no significant age effect.^10,12 A 372-patient Central Gujarat cohort similarly found no significant association between DLQI and age or gender.⁶² This inconsistency likely reflects differences in study population, occupational exposure, and cultural factors across settings rather than a uniform biological effect.

4. DISCUSSION

4.1 Comparison with other dermatoses

The absolute DLQI scores reported for chronic dermatophytosis (often 14–18) are comparable to, and in several series exceed, those reported for other chronic dermatoses long recognized as QoL-impairing, including psoriasis, acne vulgaris, and vitiligo.^{13,14,17,18,27–29} This is notable given that dermatophytosis has historically been regarded in clinical practice as a trivial, self-limiting infection; the reviewed evidence instead positions chronic, recurrent tinea as a substantial and under-recognized contributor to dermatology-related QoL burden.

4.2 Clinical implications

Taken together, the reviewed evidence supports three practical implications for clinical care. First, routine incorporation of a brief validated QoL instrument (such as the DLQI) into dermatophytosis consultations, particularly for patients with chronic, extensive, or recurrent disease, could help identify those experiencing disproportionate impact despite seemingly modest clinical severity.¹⁹ Second, screening for psychological distress and financial strain — not merely lesion extent — may better capture the full burden of disease and guide referral for counselling or social support.^15,16 Third, discouraging unsupervised topical corticosteroid use and promoting adherence to evidence-based antifungal regimens may reduce chronicity and its downstream QoL cost.^6,14

4.3 Strengths

This review draws on a geographically consistent and methodologically comparable body of hospital and multicenter based evidence, including one large real-world cohort of nearly 2,800 patients, allowing convergent findings across independent settings to be identified with reasonable confidence.

4.4 Limitations

This review has several limitations inherent to its narrative design. No formal systematic search protocol, date restriction, or risk-of-bias appraisal was applied, and publication bias toward statistically significant findings cannot be excluded. Nearly all reviewed studies are cross-sectional, precluding causal inference, and most originate from India and Bangladesh, limiting generalizability to other regions. Several studies relied on self-reported financial and hygiene data subject to recall bias, and translated DLQI versions used across studies have not uniformly undergone independent psychometric validation.^15,16 Longitudinal studies integrating DLQI with standardized clinical severity indices are needed to clarify causal pathways between disease chronicity, treatment response, and QoL recovery.

5. CONCLUSION

Dermatophytosis, once regarded as a benign nuisance, is associated across a substantial and geographically consistent body of hospital-based evidence with meaningful, often “very large” to “extremely large,” impairment of quality of life, particularly when chronic, recurrent, extensive, or complicated by topical steroid misuse, psychological distress, or financial strain. Disease duration and body-surface-area involvement are the most consistently replicated predictors of QoL impairment, while socioeconomic status, occupation, anatomical site, and systemic comorbidity further modulate this burden. Integrating quality-of-life and psychosocial assessment into routine dermatological care, alongside rational, guideline-concordant antifungal therapy, represents a practical and evidence-supported step toward reducing the disproportionate human cost of this increasingly common disease.

REFERENCES

1. Hay RJ, Ashbee HR. Fungal infections. In: Griffiths CEM, Barker J, Bleiker T, Chalmers R, Creamer D, editors. Rook's Textbook of Dermatology. 9th ed. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2016.
2. Havlickova B, Czaika VA, Friedrich M. Epidemiological trends in skin mycoses worldwide. Mycoses. 2008;51(Suppl 4):2–15.
3. Verma S, Madhu R. The great Indian epidemic of superficial dermatophytosis: an appraisal. Indian J Dermatol. 2017;62(3):227–236.
4. AL-Khikani FH. Dermatophytosis, a worldwide contiguous fungal infection: growing challenge and few solutions. Biomed Biotechnol Res J. 2020;4:117–122.
5. Dogra S, Uprety S. The menace of chronic and recurrent dermatophytosis in India: is the problem deeper than we perceive? Indian Dermatol Online J. 2016;7(2):73–76.
6. Rajagopalan M, Inamadar A, Mittal A, Miskeen AK, Srinivas CR, Sardana K, et al. Expert consensus on the management of dermatophytosis in India (ECTODERM India). BMC Dermatol. 2018;18:6.
7. Nenoff P, Verma SB, Vasani R, Burmester A, Hipler UC, Wittig F, et al. The current Indian epidemic of superficial dermatophytosis due to Trichophyton mentagrophytes – a molecular study. Mycoses. 2019;62(1):336–356.
8. Verma SB, Panda S, Nenoff P, Singal A, Rudramurthy SM, Uhrlass S, et al. The unprecedented epidemic-like scenario of dermatophytosis in India: I. Epidemiology, risk factors and clinical features. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2021;87:154–175.
9. Finlay AY, Khan GK. Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI): a simple practical measure for routine clinical use. Clin Exp Dermatol. 1994;19(3):210–216.
10. Das NK, Das S. A study to assess the quality of life (QOL) of patients suffering from tinea corporis attending dermatology OPD of a tertiary care centre of Eastern India. Int J Med Res Rev. 2019;7(06):490–495.
11. Saini S, Shail A, Manish J, Devendra Y. The social and psychological impact of superficial dermatophytic infection using DLQI and GHQ-12: a cross-sectional study in 174 patients at a tertiary care centre in southern-east Rajasthan. J Dermatol Res Rev Rep. 2021;2(4):1–6.
12. Prabhu N, Rajeshwari KA, Sangolli PM. Quality of life in patients with chronic dermatophytosis: a cross-sectional study. Our Dermatol Online. 2024;15(4):349–352.
13. Rajashekar TS, Nandigonnanavar S, Kuppuswamy SK, Madhavi GS. Dermatology life quality index in patients with persisting and recurrent dermatophytoses. Int J Res Dermatol. 2019;5(1):139–143.
14. Meena D, Hazarika N, Chauhan P, Goyal P. Steroid abuse, quality of life, and various risk factors in dermatophytosis: a cross-sectional observational study from a tertiary care center in northern India. Acta Dermatovenerol APA. 2022;31:135–140.
15. Imthiaz NF, Hegde SP, Sathyanath S, Shenoy MM, Pinto M, Razak A. Assessment of psychosocial well-being, psychological distress, and financial burden in patients with chronic and recurrent dermatophytosis. Psychiatriki. 2025. doi:10.22365/jpsych.2025.015.
16. Karanam P, Veldi VD, Metta AK, Angara SSP, Rani N, Sandhya P, et al. Psychosocial and financial impact of dermatophytosis on patients attending a tertiary care centre at Visakhapatnam: a cross-sectional study. Cureus. 2025;17(4):e82483.
17. Varshney AP, Gahalaut P, Pardal PK, Mishra N, Rastogi MK, Thapa M. Quality of life in patients with chronic dermatophytosis. Nepal J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2020;18(1):44–51.
18. Uddin K, Yesmin S. Quality of life in patients with chronic dermatophytosis in a tertiary care hospital, Bangladesh. The Insight. 2024;7(1):175–185.
19. Singh P, Shenoy M, Girdhar M, Parasramani SG, Das A, Mishra PS, et al. Assessing the impact of dermatophytosis on quality of life using the Dermatology Life Quality Index: a real-world cross-sectional study from India. Cureus. 2026;18(4):e106253.
20. Hongbo Y, Thomas CL, Harrison MA, Salek MS, Finlay AY. Translating the science of quality of life into practice: what do dermatology life quality index scores mean? J Invest Dermatol. 2005;125(4):659–664.
21. Basra MK, Fenech R, Gatt RM, Salek MS, Finlay AY. The Dermatology Life Quality Index 1994–2007: a comprehensive review of validation data and clinical results. Br J Dermatol. 2008;159(5):997–1035.
22. Nijsten T. Dermatology life quality index: time to move forward. J Invest Dermatol. 2012;132(1):11–13.
23. Patel NH, Padhiyar JK, Patel AP, Chhebber AS, Patel BR, Patel TD. Psychosocial and financial impact of disease among patients of dermatophytosis, a questionnaire-based observational study. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2020;11:373–377.
24. Mijaljica D, Spada F, Harrison IP. Emerging trends in the use of topical antifungal-corticosteroid combinations. J Fungi (Basel). 2022;8(8):812.
25. Sonego B, Corio A, Mazzoletti V, et al. Trichophyton indotineae, an emerging drug-resistant dermatophyte: a review of the treatment options. J Clin Med. 2024;13(12):3558.
26. Verma S, Vasani R, Reszke R, Matusiak L, Szepietowski JC. The influence of superficial dermatophytoses epidemic in India on patients' quality of life. Postepy Dermatol Alergol. 2021;38:102–105.
27. Nayak PB, Girisha BS, Noronha TM. Correlation between disease severity, family income, and quality of life in psoriasis: a study from South India. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2018;9(3):165–169.
28. Hazarika N, Rajaprabha RK. Assessment of life quality index among patients with acne vulgaris in a suburban population. Indian J Dermatol. 2016;61(2):163–168.
29. Hedayat K, Karbakhsh M, Ghiasi M, Goodarzi A, Fakour Y, Akbari Z, et al. Quality of life in patients with vitiligo: a cross-sectional study based on Vitiligo Quality of Life index (VitiQoL). Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:1–9.
30. Zhang M, Zhang N. Quality of life assessment in patients with alopecia areata and androgenetic alopecia in the People's Republic of China. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017;11:151–155.
31. Al-Mutairi N, Eldin ON. Clinical profile and impact on quality of life: seven years' experience with patients of alopecia areata. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2011;77(4):489–493.
32. Abedini R, Hallaji Z, Lajevardi V, Nasimi M, Khaledi MK, Tohidinik HR. Quality of life in mild and severe alopecia areata patients. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2018;4(2):91–94.
33. Raddadi AA, Jfri A, Samarghandi S, Matury N, Habibullah T, Alfarshoti M, et al. Psoriasis: correlation between severity index (PASI) and quality of life index (DLQI) based on type of treatment. J Dermatol Surg. 2016;20(1):15–18.
34. Patro N, Panda M, Jena AK. The menace of superficial dermatophytosis on the QOL of patients attending referral hospital in Eastern India: a cross-sectional observational study. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2019;10:262–266.
35. Narang T, Bhattacharjee R, Singh S, Jha K, Mahajan R, Dogra S, et al. Quality of life and psychological morbidity in patients with superficial cutaneous dermatophytosis. Mycoses. 2019;62(8):680–685.
36. Mushtaq S, Faizi N, Amin SS, Adil M, Mohtashim M. Impact on quality of life in patients with dermatophytosis. Australas J Dermatol. 2020;61(4):e184–e188.
37. Das A, Sil A, Fatima F, Podder I, Jafferany M. Impact of chronic and recurrent dermatophytosis on quality of life and psychologic morbidity – a cross-sectional study. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022;21(8):3586–3592.
38. Das A, Fatima F, Sil A, Podder I, Jafferany M. Therapeutic management of psychological morbidity and impaired quality of life in patients with persistent dermatophytoses. Dermatol Ther. 2020;33(6):e14124.
39. Jamil R, Saxena K, Koti V, Mohanty S. Dermatophytosis: its impact on quality of life and financial burden. Int J Med Biomed Stud. 2023;7(1):7–13.
40. Salari N, Heidarian P, Hosseinian-Far A, Babajani F, Mohammadi M. Global prevalence of anxiety, depression, and stress among patients with skin diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prev (2022). 2024;45:611–649.
41. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67(6):361–370.
42. Romppel M, Braehler E, Roth M, Glaesmer H. What is General Health Questionnaire assessing? Dimensionality and psychometric properties of the General Health Questionnaire-12 in a large-scale German population sample. Compr Psychiatry. 2013;54(4):406–413.
43. Montazeri A, Harirchi AM, Shariati M, Garmaroudi G, Ebadi M, Fateh A. The 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12): translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:66.
44. Gould D, et al. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). J Clin Nurs. 2001;10:697–706.
45. Weisshaar E, Szepietowski JC, Dalgard FJ, Garcovich S, Gieler U, Giménez-Arnau AM, et al. European S2k guideline on chronic pruritus. Acta Derm Venereol. 2019;99(5):469–506.
46. Elman S, Hynan LS, Gabriel V, Mayo MJ. The 5-D itch scale: a new measure of pruritus. Br J Dermatol. 2010;162(3):587–593.
47. Basra MKA, Salek MS, Camilleri L, Sturkey R, Finlay AY. Determining the minimal clinically important difference and clinically important difference bands for the Dermatology Life Quality Index. Dermatology. 2015;230(1):27–36.
48. Veenstra CM, Regenbogen SE, Hawley ST, Griggs JJ, Banerjee M, Kato I, et al. A composite measure of personal financial burden among patients with stage III colorectal cancer. Med Care. 2014;52(11):957–962.
49. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, Erikson P. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8(2):94–104.
50. Bishnoi A, Vinay K, Dogra S. Emergence of recalcitrant dermatophytosis in India. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018;18(3):250–251.
51. D'Souza MJ, Hundi G. Awareness of risk factors for dermatophytoses and its impact on quality of life among adults in Mangalore: a cross-sectional study. IOSR J Dent Med Sci. 2018;17:64–70.
52. Drake LA, Scher RK, Smith EB, Faich GA, Smith SL, Hong JJ, et al. Effect of onychomycosis on quality of life. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1998;38(5):702–704.
53. Gupta AK, Mays RR. The impact of onychomycosis on quality of life: a systematic review of the available literature. Skin Appendage Disord. 2018;4:208–216.
54. Panda S, Verma S. The menace of dermatophytosis in India: the evidence that we need. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2017;83(3):281–284.
55. Sahoo AK, Mahajan R. Management of tinea corporis, tinea cruris, and tinea pedis: a comprehensive review. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2016;7(2):77–86.
56. WHOQOL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol Med. 1998;28(3):551–558.
57. World Health Organization. WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1997.
58. Yeung H, Takeshita J, Mehta NN, Kimmel SE, Ogdie A, Margolis DJ, et al. Psoriasis severity and the prevalence of major medical comorbidity: a population-based study. JAMA Dermatol. 2013;149(10):1173–1179.
59. Bashir S, Hassan I, Wani RT. Influence of dermatophytosis on quality of life: a cross sectional study from Kashmir Valley in North India. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2020;7(5):1711–1716.
60. Shukla P, Verma P, Suvirya S, Pathania S, Kapoor D. Cutaneous dermatophytosis: a problem deeper than we perceive – a cross sectional prospective study on quality of life in 385 patients. Clin Epidemiol Glob Health. 2022;17:101115.
61. Laxmi H, Kumar Dilip NR. The impact of superficial dermatophytosis on quality of life: a cross-sectional observational study. IP Indian J Clin Exp Dermatol. 2021;7(3):191–196.
62. Rathwa M, Vinod GM, Sivanthiga G, Sheth P, Nanda S, Shringarpure K. Assessment of the quality of life (QoL) and associated factors in patients suffering from tinea infection attending dermatology OPD of a tertiary care hospital, Gujarat, India: a cross-sectional study. J Dermatol Case Rep. 2025;18(1):70–76.
63. Johnson RA, Prithviraj HK T, Swaroop MR, Monisha R, Karthick KS, Poornima HK S. Depression and quality of life among patients with dermatophyte infections at a rural tertiary care hospital: a cross sectional study. IP Indian J Clin Exp Dermatol. 2025;11(1):33–38.