Trial reportEBioMedicine2018
Evaluation of point-of-care tests for cutaneous leishmaniasis diagnosis in Kabul, Afghanistan.
Trial report in EBioMedicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
43 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel pan-Leishmania loop-mediated isothermal amplification (Loopamp) assay for diagnosis of cutaneous and visceral leishmaniasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Pooled it
- qPCR as a Tool for the Diagnosis of Visceral and Cutaneous Leishmaniasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Acta parasitologica · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance of CL Detect rapid-immunochromatographic test for cutaneous leishmaniasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Diagnosis of visceral and cutaneous leishmaniasis using loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) protocols: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Parasites & vectors · 2022Pooled it
- Potential antigenic targets used in immunological tests for diagnosis of tegumentary leishmaniasis: A systematic review.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- From Skin to Sequence: Pan-species Detection and Speciation of Leishmania.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2026Article
- LAMP-coupled CRISPR-Cas12a assays: A promising new tool for molecular diagnosis of leishmaniasis.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Leishmaniasis in Morocco: Epidemiology, Transmission Dynamics, and the Potential of Artificial Intelligence for Disease Management.Journal of parasitology research · 2026Review
- Molecular diagnostics for cutaneous leishmaniasis: progress towards fulfilling the WHO target product profile.Parasitology · 2025Review
- Cutaneous leishmaniasis in Afghanistan.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2025Review
- Advances and Challenges in the Diagnosis of Leishmaniasis.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2025Review
- Evaluation of Loopamp Leishmania detection kit for the diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Ethiopia.Parasites & vectors · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Less Invasive Sampling Tools for the Diagnosis of Cutaneous Leishmaniasis.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Neglected tropical disease (NTD) diagnostics: current development and operations to advance control.Pathogens and global health · 2024Review
- Article
- Micro-costing from healthcare professional's perspective and acceptability of cutaneous leishmaniasis diagnostic tools in Morocco: A mixed-methods study.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Automated Identification of Cutaneous Leishmaniasis Lesions Using Deep-Learning-Based Artificial Intelligence.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- Laboratory Evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP Test.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Article
- Diagnosis of Human Cutaneous Leishmaniasis: A Comparative Study Using CL DetectActa parasitologica · 2023Article
- Evaluation of a diagnostic device, CL Detect rapid test for the diagnosis of new world cutaneous leishmaniasis in Peru.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundKabul (Afghanistan) is a major focus of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) caused by Leishmania tropica. Microscopy remains the reference test for diagnosis despite its low performance. We evaluated whether Loopamp™ Leishmania Detection Kit (Loopamp) and CL Detect™ Rapid Test (CL Detect), detecting Leishmania DNA and antigen, respectively could improve CL diagnosis.
methodsA diagnostic accuracy study with prospective inclusion was conducted in a leishmaniasis reference clinic in Kabul. Slit skin samples from CL suspects were analysed by microscopy. Samples taken with a dental broach were tested with CL Detect, Loopamp, and PCR. All samples were transferred to the Academic Medical Center (AMC, the Netherlands) for PCR and Loopamp analyses. The diagnostic performance of the tests was evaluated against a reference combining microscopy and PCR.
findings274 CL suspects were included in the study. In Kabul, CL Detect had a 65·4% sensitivity [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 59.2-71.2%] and a 100% specificity [95% CI: 80.5-100%], while these were 87.6% [95%CI: 82.9-91.3%] and 70.6% [95% CI: 44.0-89.7%] for Loopamp. At AMC the Loopamp's sensitivity (92.2% [95% CI: 88.2-95.2%]) and specificity (94.1% [95% CI: 71.3-99.8%]) were higher. An algorithm where CL Detect negative suspects would be tested by Loopamp yielded a 93.4% sensitivity [95% CI: 89.6-96.1%] and a 94.1% specificity [95% CI: 71.3-99.8%] when Loopamp's performance at AMC was used.
interpretationThe high specificity of CL Detect and the performance of Loopamp allow their use in a diagnostic algorithm that would minimize the number of CL patients referred for confirmation. FUND: Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Germany.
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.