Skip to main content
  • Loading metrics

Global Burden of Human Mycetoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis


Mycetoma is a chronic infectious disease of the subcutaneous tissue with a high morbidity. This disease has been reported from countries between 30°N and 15°S since 1840 but the exact burden of disease is not known. It is currently unknown what the incidence, prevalence and the number of reported cases per year per country is. In order to estimate what the global burden of mycetoma is, a meta-analysis was performed. In total 50 studies were included, which resulted in a total of 8763 mycetoma cases. Most cases were found in men between 11 and 40 years of age. The foot was most commonly affected. Most cases were reported from Mexico, Sudan and India. Madurella mycetomatis was the most prevalent causative agent world-wide, followed by Actinomadura madurae, Streptomyces somaliensis, Actinomadura pelletieri, Nocardia brasiliensis and Nocardia asteroides. Although this study represents a first indication of the global burden on mycetoma, the actual burden is probably much higher. In this study only cases reported to literature could be used and most of these cases were found by searching archives from a single hospital in a single city of that country. By erecting (inter)national surveillance programs a more accurate estimation of the global burden on mycetoma can be obtained.

Author Summary

Mycetoma is a chronic infection resulting in large masses of the subcutaneous tissue of mainly the foot. It can be caused by bacteria or fungi. Treatment for most mycetoma cases is poor and amputations are common. Although this disease was already described almost 200 years ago, it is currently not known how many people over the globe actually suffer from this disease and which countries are mostly affected. These data are useful because they can be used to concentrate medical help in places where it is really needed and to focus to search on new medication on the most common causative agents. Since mycetoma is not a reportable disease, a meta-analysis was performed based from reports in literature, in order to estimate what the global burden of mycetoma is. In total 8763 mycetoma cases were analysed. It appeared that most cases were reported from Mexico, Sudan and India and that the fungus Madurella mycetomatis was the most prevalent causative agent world-wide. Although this study represents a first indication of the global burden on mycetoma, the actual burden is probably much higher. By erecting (inter)national surveillance programs a more accurate estimation of the global burden on mycetoma can be obtained.


Mycetoma is a chronic infectious disease, characterized by the formation of tumor like-swellings and the formation of grains. This disease usually begins with a small trauma on the foot which introduces the causative agent into the subcutaneous tissue. Inside this tissue the causative agent will organize itself into small granules called grains. A small nodule will arise which gradually will grow into a large subcutaneous mass with sinuses which will secrete pus and grains. Eventually the bone will be invaded and a large mutilating lesion will be formed and the foot will be amputated [1]. Although mycetoma is usually found in the foot, other body sides can be affected as well [2].

Although, the first documented clinical cases of mycetoma were already described in 1842 by Gill, uncertainty remains about the total number of cases world-wide as already mentioned by Gokhale in 1981 [3]. A first attempt to map the number of mycetoma cases in a certain region was made by Abbott in the early 1950s [4]. Abbott, studied 1321 mycetoma cases in the Sudan in a 2.5 year period and published his findings in 1956 [4]. Many scientists were surprised by the amount of cases to be retrieved in such a small period, which could indicate that the burden of mycetoma was higher than previously thought. Therefore, others started to determine the burden of mycetoma in other countries known to be endemic for mycetoma, such as Congo [5], Somalia [6], [7], [8], [9], Argentina [10], [11] and Mexico [12], [13]. Although several studies have been performed to determine the prevalence of mycetoma in a certain region or country, no overall study has been performed to determine the prevalence of mycetoma world-wide. Furthermore mycetoma is not a reportable disease; therefore it is currently still not known what the global burden of mycetoma is.

In the surveys performed in the past and based on case-studies it appeared many different species, both bacteria and fungi, are able to cause mycetoma. In the review written by Ahmed et al. 48 species were listed as causative agents [1]. Some of these agents were considered to be common causative agents of mycetoma while others were found only rarely. A definition on common or rare was not given. Recently, based on sequencing either the 16S region (for bacteria) or the ITS region (for fungi) more causative agents were added to this list [14], [15], [16]. Since molecular identification is not used in the endemic regions, the total number of species able to cause mycetoma is still not known. Furthermore, no clear definition is given which species are common causative agents of human mycetoma and which are only rarely implicated.

The distribution of the mycetoma causative agents is not equal around the globe. In overall, actinomycetoma – mycetoma caused by bacteria – is more commonly found in Middle and South-America while eumycetoma – mycetoma caused by fungi – is more commonly found in Africa [4], [13]. But within a country, this could also differ per region [17], [18].

In order to estimate what the true burden of mycetoma is globally, a meta-analysis was performed in which all studies in which the epidemiology of the mycetoma causative agents was studied were reviewed. Studies with more than 10 cases were included. The burden of mycetoma was determined in terms of prevalence and the number of reported cases per year per country. Furthermore we determined which species were most commonly associated with mycetoma and prepared definitions based on the ∼8000 cases to determine which species were commonly, occasionally or rarely associated with mycetoma development.


Search strategy

A systematic review of available literature on the epidemiology of mycetoma was searched using the electronic database PubMed with the use of the following search terms: Mycetoma AND epidemiology or Madura foot AND epidemiology. Studies published in languages other than English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, German or Dutch were excluded. The search was supplemented by reviewing the reference lists of all selected studies. Studies were excluded if the number of patients studied was <10 patients, if a study was already published before and if the paper was written as a review.


To determine the prevalence for each country, the number of reported cases for each year for that country were divided through the total population of that country for that year. Population figures were derived from IndexMundi (

This site only gives data from 1960 onwards. If studies had data from older years, the population size of 1960 was used to calculate the prevalence. To determine the prevalence within individual Indian states, population figures were derived from

Calculations and definitions to determine prevalent species

From each study, the sampling period, the region of sampling, the sex distribution, age distribution and species isolated were recorded. To determine which species were most prevalent the percentages of each species present in a certain study was calculated. The percentage was used for comparison since some studies reported on >2000 cases while others reported only 11. To determine the global prevalence, the sum of the means for each country for a certain species was taken and then divided by the total of countries included. To determine which species were most prevalent the following definitions were used: common: >5% of the reported cases world-wide was caused by this species; occasional: 1–5% of the reported cases world-wide was caused by this species; rare: <1% of the reported cases world-wide was caused by this species.


Our systematic review identified 258 studies of which 49 full articles were reviewed (Figure 1). Via manually searching of the references used in those studies an additional 17 studies were included. In total 17 studies were excluded for analysis because they did not meet the inclusion criteria (5 studies) [11], [19], [20], [21], [22], or contained data already published in another paper (6 studies) [8], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] or consisted of reviews instead of original data (5 studies) [3], [5], [28], [29], [30] or could not be retrieved (1 study). This led to a total number of 50 studies to be included into the study [4], [6], [7], [9], [10], [12], [13], [17], [18], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]. From each of these studies the number of cases was recorded, the gender of the patients, age of the patients, site of the lesion and the causative agents isolated.

Figure 1. Flow diagram of literature search.

In this flow diagram it is shown that 258 titles and abstracts were screened initially. 50 papers were screened of which 17 were excluded due to failing the inclusion criteria, studies reported in two different studies, being reviews and 1 could not be retrieved. After manually searching the references of each of the retrieved papers, 17 more papers were identified and included in the analysis. This resulted in a total of 50 papers analysed.

World-wide distribution of mycetoma

In total 8763 mycetoma cases were included in this study. Most of the cases were reported from Mexico (2607 cases) [12], [13], [53], Sudan (2555 cases) [4], [34], [70] and India (1392 cases) [17], [18], [35], [42], [44], [51], [59], [60], [65], [66], [67]. Countries with only limited cases reported are Uganda (11 cases) [64], Rumania (13 cases) [68], Nigeria (15 cases) [55], Bulgaria (16 cases) [58] and Thailand (17 cases) [56].

In order to estimate the prevalence of mycetoma the number of reported cases for each year for that country were divided through the total population of that country for that year as shown in figure 2A. As you can see in this figure, countries with the highest prevalence include Mauritania (prevalence of 3.49 cases per 100,000 inhabitants) and Sudan (prevalence of 1.81 cases per 100,000 inhabitants). Also Mexico, Senegal, Niger and Somalia have a relatively high prevalence for mycetoma. In order estimate the number of mycetoma cases reported per year the following calculation was made: the total number of cases was divided through the number of years in which they were gathered (figure 2B). So if we take as an example Mali. In Mali 54 cases were reported in a 10 year period between 1985 and 1994 [45]. So in total there were 54/10 = 5.4 cases/year seen. According to figure 2B, Sudan reported the highest number of cases yearly, namely 106 per year. For Mexico and Mauritania, this was 80.7 and 69.7 respectively.

Figure 2. Prevalence and the number of reported cases of mycetoma.

A: Average prevalence of mycetoma cases as calculated by the number of cases reported in a year in a certain country divided trough the total population of that country of that same year as reported by B: the average number of mycetoma cases reported per year per country.

Mycetoma is commonly found in the foot of man

World-wide most cases were found in men: 4060 cases in men versus 1175 cases in women. Exceptions were Thailand and Tunisia. In Thailand, men and women were equally affected (8 man and 9 women), while in Tunisia actually mycetoma was reported more in women (16 cases) than in men (12 cases). As is seen in figure 3, of the 5240 cases in which age was reported, 70% of the cases (3664 cases) were found in people with an age between 11 and 40 (3664 cases). Furthermore the most affected body site was the foot (68.7%), followed by the leg (9.9%), trunk (6.1%) and arm (4.0%) (Figure 4). Although these observations were based on all the cases reported world-wide, there are some regional differences. In all studies, the foot was the most reported lesion site, but in South-American patients the trunk was more often the site of infection than in African or Asian patients. For example, in Sudan the trunk as lesion site was only reported in 1.4% of the cases, while in Mexico it was reported in 18.7% of all cases.

Figure 3. Age distribution of the mycetoma patients.

Age distribution as reported in 5240 cases of mycetoma. For the other 3523 cases no detailed information was available.

Figure 4. Mycetoma lesion site.

The mycetoma lesion site. In this figure the percentage of cases reported from a certain body site is shown. For 2.6% of the cases the lesion site was unknown to the authors and 1.0% of the patients had multiple lesions. The percentages shown in this figure were calculated from data obtained from 4581 cases. For the other 4182 cases no detailed information was available.

The most common causative agents

As is seen in table 1, most cases were actinomycetoma cases, but the total number of actinomycetes able to cause mycetoma is less. In total, 7 different actinomycetes were identified in the studied actinomycetoma cases, but for some cases the causative agents was not identified to the species level. Some were classified as Nocardia spp. and others as actinomycetoma spp. Based on our criteria the species Actinomadura madurae, Streptomyces somaliensis, Actinomadura pelletieri, Nocardia brasiliensis and Nocardia asteroides were considered to be common causative agents. Each of them was found in >5% of the studied cases. Nocardia otidiscaviarum was only found occasionally, and Actinomyces israeli rarely.

Table 1. Number of species identified by selected papers.

For the eumycetoma cases, 18 different fungal species were identified as causative agents. Furthermore, for some cases the fungus could not be identified to the species level, but only to the genus level. These belonged to the genera Fusarium, Cladosporium or Exophiala. For 219 fungi, the fungus was not even identified to the genus level. Only the fungus Madurella mycetomatis was considered to be a common causative agent. In fact it appeared the most common causative agent of all mycetoma cases since 24.3% of all studied cases were caused by this fungus. Scedosporium boydii, Falciformispora senegalensis and Trematosphaeria grisea were occasionally isolated from mycetoma cases, and Acremonium falciforme, Aspergillus fumigatus, Exophiala jeanselmei, Geotrichum candidum, Neotestudina rosatii, Medicopsis romeroi, Biatriospora mackinnonii, Aspergillus flavus, Microsporum audouini, Cochliobolus lunatus, Rhinocladiella atrovirens, Aspergillus nidulans and Neoscytalidium dimidiatum only rarely.

The identified species were not evenly distributed throughout the world (Figure 5). M. mycetomatis, S. somaliensis and A. pelletieri were highly prevalent in Africa and Asia but hardly found in South-America. In contrast, the most prevalent species encountered in South America, N. brasiliensis, was hardly found in Africa, Europe and Asia. The only species which was found on all continents in equal amount was A. madurae.

Figure 5. Distribution of the most common causative agents per country.

The distribution of Madurella mycetomatis, Actinomadura madurae, Streptomyces somaliensis, Actinomadura pelletieril, Nocardia brasiliensis and Nocardia asteroids per country. For each country the number (N) of species identified is given. The percentage of Madurella mycetomatis, Actinomadura madurae, Streptomyces somaliensis, Actinomadura pelletieril, Nocardia brasiliensis and Nocardia asteroids were calculated from these data and displayed in the corresponding panels.

India, as example

Until now, we generalized all studies per country, but within a country there can be large differences. As an example India is taken, since from this country we had data from 11 different studies. These studies originated from different parts of the country, namely Punjab, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Adhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and West-Bengal. Most of these states have roughly the same population size at the time most studies were performed (∼50,000,000 inhabitants/state in 1981), only Punjab had a smaller population (16,788,915 inhabitants/state in 1981). As is seen in figure 6, in Rajasthan most cases were reported per year (33.3), followed by Tamil Nadu (16.8 reported cases/year) and West-Bengal (13.2 reported cases/year). The reported species per state also differed, in Rajasthan 62.5% of all mycetoma cases was caused by fungi, while in the other states most cases were caused by actinomycetoma's (54.3%–83.3% of all mycetoma cases). Not surprisingly, the species encountered also differed per state (figure 6).

Figure 6. India.

Average number of mycetoma cases reported per year in India per state and the causative agents per state.


Since it is currently not known what the global burden of mycetoma is in terms of prevalence and incidence, we tried to make a rough estimation by performing a meta-analysis on the published literature from 1955 onwards. The number of papers published around the globe was relatively little. Only 50 papers could be used, which resulted in a total number of 8763 mycetoma cases documented since 1944. The globally reported number of cases is therefore 127 cases/year. The 8763 mycetoma cases were reported from 23 different countries. For some countries we only had data on 11 cases (e.g. Uganda), while for others we had data on 2607 cases (Mexico). The more cases reported per country the more reliable the data are. Since for most studies we knew in which years the cases were seen, a rough prevalence figure was calculated by dividing the number of cases seen in each year through the total population of that country in that year. This resulted in prevalence numbers ranging from <0.01 cases per 100,000 inhabitants (several countries) to 1.8 cases per 100,000 inhabitants (Sudan) and an average of cases reported per year ranging from 0.9 (Tunesia) to 106 (Sudan) (Figures 2A and 2B). These numbers are gross underestimations of the true prevalence, since only cases reported to literature could be used. Most of these cases were found by searching archives from a single hospital in a single city of that country. Only those studies which searched multiple centres throughout the country, such as the studies performed by Abbott in Sudan [4] and by Lopez Martinez in Mexico [13], more than 1000 patients were documented. Based on these short-comings we estimate that the total number of mycetoma cases will be much higher.

Some evidence of a higher prevalence exists, although not reported to literature. For instance, in 1991 the Mycetoma Research Centre in Khartoum, Sudan was established. Since its founding, 6334 patients have been seen. In 2012 only, 5158 patients were seen of which 402 were new cases. This means that there were (5158 cases/year) seen in Sudan only, which were not reported to literature (prof A. Fahal, personal communication). Furthermore, the incidence calculated on the figures from the Mycetoma Research Centre are most probably also an underestimation, since a cohort study performed in the endemic village Abu Gumri in Sudan performed in 1960, indicated that there was a prevalence of 6.2 per 1000 inhabitants in that particular village [72].

Although the reported number of cases seen per year in this study is an underestimation, they are comparable with the number of cases reported for Buruli Ulcer and human African trypanosomiasis in many countries [73]. For instance, the number of reported Buruli Ulcer cases in 2009 were below 100 cases for Australia, Sudan, Gabon, Nigeria, and Guinea, while there were between 100 and 500 cases reported in Cameroon, Congo and the Democratic republic for the Congo in that year [73]. The number of reported Human African Trypanosomiasis (HAT) from surveillance studies in 2009 were below 100 reported cases for Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Congo, Cameroon and Gabon [74]. The countries in which between 100 and 500 HAT cases were reported included Sudan, Angola and Uganda [74]. The data obtained for both Buruli Ulcer and HAT were from surveillance data, which makes these numbers more reliable than, the number of mycetoma cases/year reported here were derived from single center studies, and represent an underestimation. Therefore the prevalence of mycetoma is probably higher than that of either Buruli Ulcer or HAT. Still, Buruli Ulcer and HAT are reported on the list of neglected diseases while mycetoma is not.

In this study it was shown that mycetoma could be caused by many different micro-organisms, both bacteria and fungi. Globally, most cases were caused by bacteria (50.8%) and a smaller percentage by fungi (41.7%) (Table 1), although this differed per country. In many African countries actually more eumycetoma cases were found as actinomycetoma cases. In table 1 it was also shown that there are many different bacteria and fungi able to cause mycetoma. There were 7 different bacterial species and 16 different fungal species reported. The total list of species able to cause mycetoma is actually longer. Since we only focused on studies reporting more than 10 cases per study, we missed the many species named in case reports. Other bacterial species implicated in mycetoma are Actinomadura latina, Gordonia terrae, Nocardia farcinica, Nocardia harenae, Nocardia mexicana, Nocardia transvalensis, Nocardia veterana, Nocardia yamanashiensis, Nocardiopsis dassonvillei and Streptomyces sudanensis [1], [14], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]. Other fungal species implicated in mycetoma are Acremonium recifei, Cladophialophora bantiana, Corynespora cassiicola, Curvularia geniculata, Diaporthe phaseolorum, Fusarium oxysporum, Gibberella fujikuroi (synonym: Fusarium monoliforme), Haematonectria haematococca (synonym: Fusarium solani), Ilyonectria destructans (synonym: Cylindrocarpon destructans), Falciformispora tompkinsii (synonym: Leptosphaeria tompkinsii), Madurella fahalii, Madurella pseudomycetomatis, Madurella tropicana, Microsporum canis, Phaeoacremonium parasiticum, Phialophora cyanescens (synonym: Cylindrocarpon cyanescens), Phialophora verrucosa, Pleurostomophora ochracea, Pseudochaetosphaeronema larense, Rhinocladiella atrovirens, Sarocladium kiliense (synonym: Acremonium kiliense), Setosphaeria rostrata (synonym: Exserohilum rostrata) [1], [15], [16], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98]. Since most of these species are only found in case studies, these are probably only rarely associated with mycetoma, if associated at all.

Although most species represented in Table 1 were isolated from multiple cases, some species were only isolated from 1–5 cases, which makes one wonder if this was the true causative agent. Only for Nocardia asteroides [99], Nocardia brasiliensis [99], [100], [101], [102], Nocardia caviae [99], [100], Nocardia transvalensis [103], Madurella mycetomatis [104], [105] the pathogenicity in animal models has been demonstrated. In all these animal models pathology resembling mycetoma and the formation of grains was demonstrated. The only attempt ever recorded for Actinomadura madurae, Actinomadura pelletieri and Streptomyces somalienis failed [104]. So, one could wonder if all species listed in Table 1 and in the discussion are true causative agents for mycetoma.

The causative agents presented in Table 1 were identified based on histology only or on histology combined with culture. Therefore, the possibility arises that some of the causative agents were misidentified. Although widely used, the limitations of histological diagnosis have been known since the early 1960s. It is impossible to differentiate Nocardia spp. to the species level based on histology only, all species form white to yellow, small spherical grains [106], [107]. Also S. boydii, Acremonium spp and Fusarium spp are difficult to differentiate [106], [107]. These species produce white to yellow grains with a dense mass of slender, septate, hyaline hyphae with occasional vesicles or swollen hyphae [107]. The black-grain causative agents F. senegalensis, F. tompkinsii, M. romeroi, Exophiala jeanselmei and T. grisea also produce similar type of grains [107]. These species produce black grains, which can be tubular or hollow with a darker periphery [107]. The Falciformispora grains usually contain larger vesicles than the other species [107]. Some causative agents can cause multiple grain types in histological slides. Madurella mycetomatis is known to produce three structural forms of the fungal grain: the filamentous type, the vesicular type and a mixture of both [2]. In the vesicular type of grain the center is light colored and the hyphae in the periphery are brown, just as the ones described above for F. senegalensis, F. tompkinsii, M. romeroi, Exophiala jeanselmei and T. grisea [2]. For some of the studies culturing of the causative agents was also included. But identification of species based on culturing only, has known to be troublesome too, especially for the fungi. Identification of the fungi is usually achieved by observation of the growth rate, colony morphology, production of conidia and assimilation patterns. Most of the black-grain eumycetoma causative agents only rarely produce conidia and therefore misidentifications are known to occur frequently [108]. A well-known example is T. grisea, previously known as Madurella grisea. Due to the numerous misidentifications McGinnis suggested in 1996 that this species should be considered a complex of different fungi, classified together because of their sclerotial color and architecture and colony characteristics [109]. Some isolates of B. mackinnonii are known to be misidentified as T. grisea, since some of these isolates did not form pycnidia at standard media, but only after stimulation [109]. Furthermore, with classical culture methods, not all species can be differentiated. An example is Streptomyces sudanensis, which morphologically is equal to Streptomyces somaliensis. Only by sequencing the 16S gene of these species, it appeared that out of 9 previously identified S. somaliensis strains, 5 were actually misidentified and were renamed S. sudanensis [14]. The same was true for M. mycetomatis, in 2012 it appeared that M. mycetomatis had some close relatives which could only be identified by ITS sequencing, not on morphology [15]. Even when the species was already known, misidentifications have occurred in the past. N. brasiliensis has always been considered the most common causative agent of actinomycetoma in Mexico. Sánchez-Herrara demonstrated in 2012, that from the 18 previously identified N. brasiliensis isolates obtained from mycetoma patients in Mexico City between 1947 and 1959, only 7 were N. brasiliensis, the other 11 were proven to be N. farcinica based on sequencing and phenotypic profiles [110]. Therefore it remains doubtful that the data derived from the studies used for this meta-analysis were based on correctly identified species.

Even with all these short-comings listed of this meta-analysis, it still gives a good overview of our current knowledge on the burden of mycetoma world-wide. In order to better estimate the burden, global surveillance programs should be erected, like for instance the surveillance program for Buruli Ulcer. This program is the result of the Global Buruli Ulcer initiative established in 1998 by the WHO and recognized by the 57th World Health Assembly in 2004 [111]. For this surveillance program, standardized forms (BU02) were generated which are now used in the endemic countries. If such a system was developed for mycetoma, better understanding on the global burden, and the epidemiology of this disease will be gained.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: WWJvdS. Performed the experiments: WWJvdS. Analyzed the data: WWJvdS. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: WWJvdS. Wrote the paper: WWJvdS. Performed the literature search and retrieved all data from this literature: WWJvdS.


  1. 1. Ahmed AO, van Leeuwen W, Fahal A, van de Sande WWJ, Verbrugh H, et al. (2004) Mycetoma caused by Madurella mycetomatis: a neglected infectious burden. Lancet Infect Dis 4: 566–574.
  2. 2. Fahal AH (2006) Mycetoma, Clinicopathological Monograph. Khartoum: Khartoum University Press.
  3. 3. Gokhale BB (1981) Epidemiology of mycetoma. Hindustan Antibiot Bull 23: 18–24.
  4. 4. Abbott P (1956) Mycetoma in the Sudan. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 50: 11–24 discussion, 24-30.
  5. 5. Vanbreuseghem R (1958) Epidemiologie et therapeutique des pieds de Madura au Congo belge. Bull Soc Pathol Exot 51: 759–814.
  6. 6. Orio J, Destombes P, Mariat F, Segretain G (1963) [Mycetoma in the French Somali Coast. Review of 50 Cases Observed between 1954 and 1962]. Bull Soc Pathol Exot Filiales 56: 161–173.
  7. 7. destombes P, Du Tour J, Marquet J, Mariat F, Segretain G (1958) Les mycétomes en Côte Française des Somalis. Bull Soc Pathol Exot 51: 575–581.
  8. 8. Destombes P, Mariat F, Rosati L, Segretain G (1966) [Mycetomas in the Republic of Somalia]. C R Acad Sci Hebd Seances Acad Sci D 263: 2062–2064.
  9. 9. Destombes P, Mariat F, Rosati L, Segretain G (1977) [Mycetoma in Somalia - results of a survey done from 1959 to 1964]. Acta Trop 34: 355–373.
  10. 10. Biagini RE, Martinez TE, Museli A, Sarmiento Villa H (1983) [Mycetoma in northern Argentina]. Med Cutan Ibero Lat Am 11: 431–436.
  11. 11. Nino FL, Freire RS (1966) [Maduromycotic mycetoma in the province of Chaco (Argentina)]. Mycopathol Mycol Appl 28: 95–96.
  12. 12. Lavalle P (1966) [New data on the etiology of mycetoma in Mexico and on its pathogenesis]. Gac Med Mex 96: 545–574.
  13. 13. Lopez Martinez R, Mendez Tovar LJ, Lavalle P, Welsh O, Saul A, et al. (1992) [Epidemiology of mycetoma in Mexico: study of 2105 cases]. Gac Med Mex 128: 477–481.
  14. 14. Quintana ET, Wierzbicka K, Mackiewicz P, Osman A, Fahal AH, et al. (2008) Streptomyces sudanensis sp. nov., a new pathogen isolated from patients with actinomycetoma. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 93: 305–313.
  15. 15. de Hoog GS, van Diepeningen AD, Mahgoub el S, van de Sande WW (2012) New species of madurella, causative agents of black-grain mycetoma. J Clin Microbiol 50: 988–994.
  16. 16. Mhmoud NA, Ahmed SA, Fahal AH, de Hoog GS, Gerrits van den Ende AH, et al. (2012) Pleurostomophora ochracea, a novel agent of human eumycetoma with yellow grains. J Clin Microbiol 50: 2987–2994.
  17. 17. Padhi S, Uppin SG, Uppin MS, Umabala P, Challa S, et al. (2010) Mycetoma in South India: retrospective analysis of 13 cases and description of two cases caused by unusual pathogens: Neoscytalidium dimidiatum and Aspergillus flavus. Int J Dermatol 49: 1289–1296.
  18. 18. Talwar P, Sehgal SC (1979) Mycetomas in North India. Sabouraudia 17: 287–291.
  19. 19. Bourrel P, Andreu JM, Cazenave JC (1989) [Mycetoma of the hand. Apropos of 10 cases]. Ann Chir 43: 814–823.
  20. 20. Hay RJ, Mackenzie DW (1983) Mycetoma (madura foot) in the United Kingdom–a survey of forty-four cases. Clin Exp Dermatol 8: 553–562.
  21. 21. Gugnani HC, Suselan AV, Anikwe RM, Udeh FN, Ojukwu JO (1981) Actinomycetoma in Nigeria. J Trop Med Hyg 84: 259–263.
  22. 22. Gamet A, Brottes H, Essomba R (1964) [New cases of mycetoma detected in Cameroun]. Bull Soc Pathol Exot Filiales 57: 1191–1195.
  23. 23. Negroni R, Robles AM, Helou S, Arechavala A, Bianchi M, et al. (1998) Micetomas en el Hospital de Infecciosas Francisco Javier Muniz de la ciudad de Buenos Aires, Argentina. Rev Patol tropical 27: 185–194.
  24. 24. Maiti PK, Haldar PK (1998) Mycetomas in exposed and nonexposed parts of the body: a study of 212 cases. Indian J Med Microbiol 16: 19–22.
  25. 25. Mathur, Vyas MC (1989) Mycetoma–epidemiological and pathologic study of 133 cases. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 32: 75.
  26. 26. Vicens R, Coulanges P (1987) 42 cases of mycetoma in Madagascar from 1975 to 1984. Study based on histopathology. Epidemiologic considerations. Arch Inst Pasteur Madagascar 53: 19–33.
  27. 27. Develoux M, Vetter JM, Audoin J, Treguer J (1985) 63 cases of mycetoma in the Niger Republic (etiological study based on histopathology). Bull Soc Pathol Exot Filiales 78: 574–584.
  28. 28. Zarei Mahmoudabadi A, Zarrin M (2008) Mycetomas in Iran: a review article. Mycopathologia 165: 135–141.
  29. 29. Develoux M, Ndiaye B, Dieng MT (1995) Mycetomas in Africa. Sante 5: 211–217.
  30. 30. Erbakan N, Or AN, Unal M, Palali Z (1973) A review of mycetomas in Turkey. Mycopathol Mycol Appl 51: 105–113.
  31. 31. Messoudi A, Fnini S, El Andaloussi Y, Charafeddine A, Marouane S, et al. (2013) Madura foot: a rare pathology in Morocco (about 15 cases). Bull Soc Pathol Exot 106: 9–12.
  32. 32. Marc S, Meziane M, Hamada S, Hassam B, Benzekri L (2011) Clinical and epidemiological features of mycetoma in Morocco. Med Mal Infect 41: 163–164.
  33. 33. Elgallali N, El Euch D, Cheikhrouhou R, Belhadj S, Chelly I, et al. (2010) [Mycetoma in Tunisia: a 15-case series]. Med Trop (Mars) 70: 269–273.
  34. 34. Fahal AH, Sabaa AH (2010) Mycetoma in children in Sudan. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 104: 117–121.
  35. 35. Bakshi R, Mathur DR (2008) Incidence and changing pattern of mycetoma in western Rajasthan. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 51: 154–155.
  36. 36. Hashemi SJ, Nasrollahi A, Guerami M, Daei R, Pakshir K, et al. (2008) Mycetoma in Iran: Study of 62 cases. Asian journal of epidemiology 1: 77–81.
  37. 37. Negroni R, Lopez Daneri G, Arechavala A, Bianchi MH, Robles AM (2006) Clinical and microbiological study of mycetomas at the Muniz hospital of Buenos Aires between 1989 and 2004. Rev Argent Microbiol 38: 13–18.
  38. 38. Dieng MT, Niang SO, Diop B, Ndiaye B (2005) [Actinomycetomas in Senegal: study of 90 cases]. Bull Soc Pathol Exot 98: 18–20.
  39. 39. Daoud M, Ezzine Sebai N, Badri T, Mokhtar I, Fazza B, et al. (2005) Mycetoma: retrospective study of 13 cases in Tunisia. Acta Dermatovenerol Alp Panonica Adriat 14: 153–156.
  40. 40. Dieng MT, Sy MH, Diop BM, Niang SO, Ndiaye B (2003) Mycetoma: 130 cases. Ann Dermatol Venereol 130: 16–19.
  41. 41. Khatri ML, Al-Halali HM, Fouad Khalid M, Saif SA, Vyas MC (2002) Mycetoma in Yemen: clinicoepidemiologic and histopathologic study. Int J Dermatol 41: 586–593.
  42. 42. Maiti PK, Ray A, Bandyopadhyay S (2002) Epidemiological aspects of mycetoma from a retrospective study of 264 cases in West Bengal. Trop Med Int Health 7: 788–792.
  43. 43. Pitche P, Napo-Koura G, Kpodzro K, Tchangaï-Wallam K (1999) Les mycetomes au Togo: aspects épidémiologiques et étiologiques de cas histologiquement diagnostiqués. Médecine d'Afrique Noire 46: 322–325.
  44. 44. Chakraborti A, Singh K (1998) Mycetoma in Chandigarh and surrounding areas. Indian J Med Microbiol 16: 64–65.
  45. 45. Mahe A, Develoux M, Lienhardt C, Keita S, Bobin P (1996) Mycetomas in Mali: causative agents and geographic distribution. Am J Trop Med Hyg 54: 77–79.
  46. 46. N'Diaye B, develoux M, dieng MT, N'Diaye PD, Ndir O (1995) Les mycétomes à la Clinique Dermatologique de Dakar (Sénégal) : aspects épidémiologiques: à propos de 111 cas. Medecine d'Afrique Noire 42: 207–212.
  47. 47. Yu AM, Zhao S, Nie LY (1993) Mycetomas in northern Yemen: identification of causative organisms and epidemiologic considerations. Am J Trop Med Hyg 48: 812–817.
  48. 48. Castro LG, Belda Junior W, Salebian A, Cuce LC (1993) Mycetoma: a retrospective study of 41 cases seen in Sao Paulo, Brazil, from 1978 to 1989. Mycoses 36: 89–95.
  49. 49. Philippon M, Larroque D, Ravisse P (1992) [Mycetoma in Mauritania: species found, epidemiologic characteristics and country distribution. Report of 122 cases]. Bull Soc Pathol Exot 85: 107–114.
  50. 50. Develoux M, Audoin J, Treguer J, Vetter JM, Warter A, et al. (1988) Mycetoma in the Republic of Niger: clinical features and epidemiology. Am J Trop Med Hyg 38: 386–390.
  51. 51. Joshi KR, Sanghvi A, Vyas MC, Sharma JC (1987) Etiology & distribution of mycetoma in Rajasthan, India. Indian J Med Res 85: 694–698.
  52. 52. Bendl BJ, Mackey D, Al-Saati F, Sheth KV, Ofole SN, et al. (1987) Mycetoma in Saudi Arabia. J Trop Med Hyg 90: 51–59.
  53. 53. Buot G, Lavalle P, Mariat F, Suchil P (1987) [Epidemiologic study of mycetomas in Mexico. Apropos of 502 cases]. Bull Soc Pathol Exot Filiales 80: 329–339.
  54. 54. Coulanges P, Vicens R, Rakotonirina-Randriambeloma PJ (1987) [Mycetomas in Madagascar (apropos of 142 cases seen in the Laboratory of Anatomical Pathology of the Pasteur Institute of Madagascar from 1954 to 1984)]. Arch Inst Pasteur Madagascar 53: 35–42.
  55. 55. Agarwal SC, Mathur DR (1985) Mycetoma in northern Nigeria. Trop Geogr Med 37: 133–135.
  56. 56. Kotrajaras R (1981) Mycetoma, a review of seventeen cases seen at the Institute of Dermatology, Bangkok, Thailand. J Dermatol 8: 133–137.
  57. 57. Lacaz CS (1981) Distribuicao geografica dos micetomas no Brasil./Geographic distribution of mycetoma in Brazil. An Bras Dermatol 56: 167–172.
  58. 58. Balabanoff VA (1980) [Mycetomas originated from South-East Bulgaria (author's transl)]. Ann Parasitol Hum Comp 55: 605–613.
  59. 59. Mathur DR, Joshi KR, Mathur A (1979) An etiological and pathological study of mycetoma in Western Rajasthan. Curr Med Pract 23: 151–161.
  60. 60. Venugopal TV, Venugopal PV, Paramasivan CN, Shetty BM, Subramanian S (1977) Mycetomas in Madras. Sabouraudia 15: 17–22.
  61. 61. Biagini RE, Museu A, Martinez T, Salvador M (1977) Micetomas en la provincia de Salta. Archivos Argentinos Dermat 4: 217–226.
  62. 62. Negroni R (1974) Contribucion al estudio de los micetomas en. la Republica Argentina. MedicinaCutanea ILA 2: 353–362.
  63. 63. Bourrel P, Cerutti J, Disy P, Olivier R (1974) Les mycetomas propos de 64 observations. Médecine tropicale 34: 221–247.
  64. 64. Wilson AM (1973) The aetiology of myceotma in Uganda compared with other African countries. East Afr Med J 50: 382–395.
  65. 65. Reddy CRRM, Samdareshwar B, Rao AP, Reddy SS (1972) Mycetoma – histological diagnosis of causal agents in 50 cases. Indian J Med Sci 26: 733–736.
  66. 66. Chouhan SS, Agarwal S (1961) Histological diagnosis' of mycetoma – a clinical study of 24 cases. Indian Journal of Medical Research 57: 71.
  67. 67. Klokke AH, Swamidasan G, Anguli R, Verghese A (1968) The causal agents of mycetoma in South India. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 62: 509–516.
  68. 68. Avram A (1966) [A study of mycetomas of Rumania]. Mycopathol Mycol Appl 28: 1–15.
  69. 69. Klueken N, Camain R, Baylet M, Basset A (1965) [Epidemiology, Clinical Aspects and Treatment of Mycetoma in Western Africa]. Hautarzt 16: 1–6.
  70. 70. Lynch JB (1964) Mycetoma in the Sudan. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 35: 319–340.
  71. 71. Rey M, Baylet R, Camain R (1962) [Donnees actuelles sur les mycetomes. A propos de 214 cas africains]. Ann Derm Syph 89: 511–527.
  72. 72. Murray IG (1968) Laboratory aspects of mycetoma. In: Wolstenholme GEW, editor. Systemic mycosis. London, W.I.: J. & A. Churchill Ltd. pp. 78–93.
  73. 73. Merritt RW, Walker ED, Small PL, Wallace JR, Johnson PD, et al. (2010) Ecology and transmission of Buruli ulcer disease: a systematic review. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 4: e911.
  74. 74. Simarro PP, Diarra A, Ruiz Postigo JA, Franco JR, Jannin JG (2011) The human African trypanosomiasis control and surveillance programme of the World Health Organization 2000–2009: the way forward. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 5: e1007.
  75. 75. Trujillo ME, Goodfellow M (2003) Numerical phenetic classification of clinically significant aerobic sporoactinomycetes and related organisms. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 84: 39–68.
  76. 76. Bakker XR, Spauwen PH, Dolmans WM (2004) Mycetoma of the hand caused by Gordona terrae: a case report. J Hand Surg Br 29: 188–190.
  77. 77. Adhikari L, Dey S, Pal R (2010) Mycetoma due to Nocardia farcinica. J Glob Infect Dis 2: 194–195.
  78. 78. Rodriguez-Nava V, Couble A, Molinard C, Sandoval H, Boiron P, et al. (2004) Nocardia mexicana sp. nov., a new pathogen isolated from human mycetomas. J Clin Microbiol 42: 4530–4535.
  79. 79. Mirza SH, Campbell C (1994) Mycetoma caused by Nocardia transvalensis. J Clin Pathol 47: 85–86.
  80. 80. Kano R, Hattori Y, Murakami N, Mine N, Kashima M, et al. (2002) The first isolation of Nocardia veterana from a human mycetoma. Microbiol Immunol 46: 409–412.
  81. 81. Ajello L, Brown J, Macdonald E, Head E (1987) Actinomycetoma caused by Nocardiopsis dassonvillei. Arch Dermatol 123: 426.
  82. 82. Kresch-Tronik NS, Carrillo-Casas EM, Arenas R, Atoche C, Ochoa-Carrera LA, et al. (2012) Nocardia harenae, an uncommon causative organism of mycetoma: report on two patients. J Med Microbiol 61: 1153–1155.
  83. 83. Mitja O, Hays R, Van Straten C, Robson J, Koka M, et al. (2012) Mycetoma caused by Nocardia yamanashiensis, Papua New Guinea. Am J Trop Med Hyg 86: 1043–1045.
  84. 84. Yan J, Deng J, Zhou CJ, Zhong BY, Hao F (2010) Phenotypic and molecular characterization of Madurella pseudomycetomatis sp. nov., a novel opportunistic fungus possibly causing black-grain mycetoma. J Clin Microbiol 48: 251–257.
  85. 85. Koshi G, Padhye AA, Ajello L, Chandler FW (1979) Acremonium recifei as an agent of mycetoma in India. Am J Trop Med Hyg 28: 692–696.
  86. 86. Bonifaz A, De Hoog S, McGinnis MR, Saul A, Rodriguez-Cortes O, et al. (2009) Eumycetoma caused by Cladophialophora bantiana successfully treated with itraconazole. Med Mycol 47: 111–114.
  87. 87. Mahgoub E (1969) Corynespora cassiicola, a new agent of maduromycetoma. J Trop Med Hyg 72: 218–221.
  88. 88. Clark FD, Jones LP, Panigrahy B (1986) Mycetoma in a grand Eclectus (Eclectus roratus roratus) parrot. Avian Dis 30: 441–443.
  89. 89. Ajello L, Padhye AA, Chandler FW, McGinnis MR, Morganti L, et al. (1985) Fusarium moniliforme, a new mycetoma agent. Restudy of a European case. Eur J Epidemiol 1: 5–10.
  90. 90. Katkar VJ, Tankhiwale SS, Kurhade A (2011) Fusarium soloni mycetoma. Indian J Dermatol 56: 315–317.
  91. 91. Zoutman DE, Sigler L (1991) Mycetoma of the foot caused by Cylindrocarpon destructans. J Clin Microbiol 29: 1855–1859.
  92. 92. Venugopal PV, Venugopal TV (1990) Leptosphaeria tompkinsii mycetoma. Int J Dermatol 29: 432–433.
  93. 93. Chiapello LS, Dib MD, Nuncira CT, Nardelli L, Vullo C, et al. (2011) Mycetoma of the scalp due to Microsporum canis: hystopathologic, mycologic, and immunogenetic features in a 6-year-old girl. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 70: 145–149.
  94. 94. de Vries GA, de Hoog GS, de Bruyn HP (1984) Phialophora cyanescens sp. nov. with Phaeosclera-like synanamorph, causing white-grain mycetoma in man. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 50: 149–153.
  95. 95. Turiansky GW, Benson PM, Sperling LC, Sau P, Salkin IF, et al. (1995) Phialophora verrucosa: a new cause of mycetoma. J Am Acad Dermatol 32: 311–315.
  96. 96. Campbell CK (1987) Polycytella hominis gen. et sp. nov., a cause of human pale grain mycetoma. J Med Vet Mycol 25: 301–305.
  97. 97. Iriart X, Binois R, Fior A, Blanchet D, Berry A, et al. (2011) Eumycetoma caused by Diaporthe phaseolorum (Phomopsis phaseoli): a case report and a mini-review of Diaporthe/Phomopsis spp invasive infections in humans. Clin Microbiol Infect 17: 1492–1494.
  98. 98. Aguilar-Donis A, Torres-Guerrero E, Arenas-Guzman R, Hernandez-Hernandez F, Lopez-Garcia L, et al. (2011) Mycetoma caused by Phaeoacremonium parasiticum–a case confirmed with B-tubulin sequence analysis. Mycoses 54: e615–618.
  99. 99. Calegari L, Asconeguy F, Conti-Diaz IA (1982) [Experimental pathogenicity of isolates of Nocardia asteroides, Nocardia brasiliensis and Nocardia caviae from different sources]. Sabouraudia 20: 295–302.
  100. 100. Zlotnik H, Buckley HR (1980) Experimental production of actinomycetoma in BALB/c mice. Infect Immun 29: 1141–1145.
  101. 101. Salinas-Carmona MC, Torres-Lopez E, Ramos AI, Licon-Trillo A, Gonzalez-Spencer D (1999) Immune response to Nocardia brasiliensis antigens in an experimental model of actinomycetoma in BALB/c mice. Infect Immun 67: 2428–2432.
  102. 102. Chacon-Moreno BE, Welsh O, Cavazos-Rocha N, de la Luz Salazar-Cavazos M, Garza-Lozano HG, et al. (2009) Efficacy of ciprofloxacin and moxifloxacin against Nocardia brasiliensis in vitro and in an experimental model of actinomycetoma in BALB/c mice. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 53: 295–297.
  103. 103. Gugnani HC, Iboko IC, Ikerionwu SE (1986) Pathogenicity of Nocardia transvalensis for laboratory mice. Mycopathologia 96: 79–86.
  104. 104. Mahgoub ES (1978) Experimental infection of athymic nude New Zealand mice, nu nu strain with mycetoma agents. Sabouraudia 16: 211–216.
  105. 105. Ahmed AO, van Vianen W, ten Kate MT, van de Sande WW, van Belkum A, et al. (2003) A murine model of Madurella mycetomatis eumycetoma. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 37: 29–36.
  106. 106. Verghese A, Klokke AH (1966) Histologic diagnosis of species of fungus causing mycetoma. Indian J Med Res 54: 524–530.
  107. 107. Kwon-Chung KJ, Bennet JE (1992) Medical Mycology. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger.
  108. 108. van de Sande WWJ, Fahal AH, de Hoog GS, Van Belkum A (2011) Madurella. In: Liu D, editor. Molecular detection of human fungal pathogens. Boca Raton: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. pp. 117–128.
  109. 109. McGinnis MR (1996) Mycetoma. Dermatol Clin 14: 97–104.
  110. 110. Sanchez-Herrera K, Sandoval H, Couble A, Mouniee D, Ramirez-Duran N, et al. (2012) Phenotypic and genotypic evaluation of 18 Nocardia isolates from human clinical samples in Mexico. J Mycol Med 22: 1–7.
  111. 111. van der Werf TS, Stienstra Y, Johnson RC, Phillips R, Adjei O, et al. (2005) Mycobacterium ulcerans disease. Bull World Health Organ 83: 785–791.