ArticleDiagnostic and prognostic research2019
Evaluation of microcapillary culture method for the isolation of
Article in Diagnostic and prognostic research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Leishmaniasis in deployed military populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Epidemiological and clinical profiles of cutaneous leishmaniasis cases in Amhara National Regional State, Northwest Ethiopia: a multicenter retrospective study.Dermatology reports · 2025Article
- Histopathological Patterns of Cutaneous and Mucocutaneous Leishmaniasis Due toDermatology research and practice · 2024Article
- Burden of neglected tropical diseases and access to medicine and diagnostics in Ethiopia: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Laboratory diagnostics for human Leishmania infections: a polymerase chain reaction-focussed review of detection and identification methods.Parasites & vectors · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn addition to direct slide microscopy, traditional culture method (TCM) has long been considered as a gold standard method for the diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL). However, TCM is relatively expensive and time-consuming compared to the newly introduced microculture method (MCM), which has shown to be sensitive and rapid diagnostic method elsewhere for different
methodsOne hundred forty-three lesion aspirates were collected from 124 suspected CL patients prospectively based on their consecutive series. Portion of the aspirates were cultured in duplicate in TCM with modified Novy-MacNeal-Nicolle (NNN) in tissue culture flask and microcapillary tubes containing RPMI 1640 with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) for MCM. Smears on glass slides from the remaining portion of the aspirate were used for direct microscopy to detect the parasite after stained with Giemsa staining solution. Up on a consensus, positive result in any two of the three tests was used as a reference standard to analyze sensitivity.
resultsAs per consensus standard criteria, 52 of the lesions were qualified to evaluate MCM versus TCM. Forty-eight lesion samples were positive by MCM, 36 by TCM, and 37 by smear microscopy. The representative DNA from parasite culture isolates revealed the causative
conclusionsOur finding indicated that MCM is a sensitive and a rapid culturing method for the isolation of
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.