ArticleParasites & vectors2015
Comparative study of in situ hybridization, immunohistochemistry and parasitological culture for the diagnosis of canine leishmaniosis.
Article in Parasites & vectors, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular detection ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Performance of Culture Using a Semi-Automatic Needle as a Novel Tool for Collecting Lymph Node Samples for the Diagnosis of Canine Visceral Leishmaniasis.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Comparative Study of Colorimetric In Situ Hybridization and Quantitative Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction for Diagnosis of Infection byTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2024Article
- Comparison between Colorimetric In Situ Hybridization, Histopathology, and Immunohistochemistry for the Diagnosis of New World Cutaneous Leishmaniasis in Human Skin Samples.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2022Article
- Frequency of detection and load of amastigotes in the pancreas of Leishmania infantum-seropositive dogs: clinical signs and histological changes.Parasites & vectors · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe establishment of an accurate diagnostic protocol for canine visceral leishmaniosis (CanL) is a significant laboratory challenge and the lack of a reliable reference standard is one of the major problems. The aim of this study was to compare in situ hybridization (ISH), immunohistochemistry (IHC) and parasitological culture (PC) for detection of L. infantum in skin, spleen, lymph node and bone marrow of clinically healthy and sick seropositive dogs.
findingsThe study included 65 dogs positive with both DPP® and ELISA for anti-Leishmania antibodies. In situ hybridization of spleen or lymph node had the highest positivity rates of L. infantum detection. The total positivity rates for IHC, ISH and PC were 70%, 68.1% and 65.8%, respectively. When combining techniques, the positivity rates were 81.5% in the spleen, 79.0% in lymph nodes, 59.0% in bone marrow and 52.3% in the skin. The highest percentage of infected dogs (87.7%) was detected by using lymph node samples. When examining only skin, positivity was significantly higher in sick dogs than in the clinically healthy dogs. Infection with L. infantum was confirmed in 95.8% of sick dogs and in 82.4% of healthy dogs.
conclusionsConsidering the advantages of accurately diagnosing different Leishmania species and of being more sensitive than PC, ISH should be considered as reference standard test for the diagnosis of CanL. Spleen and lymph node are the most suitable tissues to confirm infection with L. infantum in seropositive dogs. The testing of only skin from clinically healthy dogs may result in a high percentage of false negative results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.