ArticlePloS one2018
Differentiation of mucosal lesions in mucocutaneous leishmaniasis and paracoccidioidomycosis.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Analysis of Oral and Oropharyngeal Mucosal Lesions of American Tegumentary Leishmaniasis and Other Infectious Granulomatous Diseases and Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Mucosal Leishmaniasis of the lip: Report of an Exuberant case in a Young man.Head and neck pathology · 2023Article
- Limitations of current chemotherapy and future of nanoformulation-based AmB delivery for visceral leishmaniasis-An updated review.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- Article
- Tongue Nodule as Primary Manifestation of American Cutaneous Leishmaniasis in an Immunocompetent Patient.Head and neck pathology · 2021Article
- Re-drawing the Maps for Endemic Mycoses.Mycopathologia · 2020Review
- An autochthonous case of paracoccidioidomycosis in a new area of Ceara State, Northeastern Brazil.Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mucocutaneous leishmaniasis and paracoccidioidomycosis are infectious diseases with similar epidemiological and clinical aspects. Cases of both diseases may manifest similar lesions in the mucosa. Therefore, the determination of distinguishing characteristics for the purpose of differential diagnosis is critical for better management of the diseases. The present study evaluated factors that assist in the differentiation of mucosal lesions between these diseases. This cross-sectional study included data from medical records of 122 cases of mucocutaneous leishmaniasis and 83 cases of paracoccidioidomycosis attended at the university hospital Cassiano Antonio Moraes, located in Vitória, Espírito Santo State, Brazil. Comparison between the diseases included the following variables: sex, age, time of disease evolution, location of the lesion and symptoms. Adults and males were affected by both diseases at higher rates. Lesions in the nasal region (95.1%; p-value = 0.000) and the pharynx (20.5%; p-value = 0.009) and nasal obstruction (34.4%; p-value = 0.000) were associated with leishmaniasis. Paracoccidioidomycosis was associated with lesions in the oral region (90.4%; p-value = 0.000), oral pain (16.9%; p-value = 0.000), and hoarseness (14.5%; p-value = 0.008). In leishmaniasis, lesions in oral regions were not associated with oral pain and were frequently located close to the nasal area. The manifestations cited above could improve the differential diagnosis of leishmaniasis and paracoccidioidomycosis, and thereby potentially aid in the choice of appropriate confirmatory diagnostic testing.
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.