ArticleInfection2019
Report on an unusual case of leprosy from Germany: just an exception of the rule?
Article in Infection, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mycobacterium leprae transmission characteristics during the declining stages of leprosy incidence: A systematic review.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2021Pooled it
- A rare case of lepromatous leprosy in Germany.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2025Article
- RLEP LAMP for the laboratory confirmation of leprosy: towards a point-of-care test.BMC infectious diseases · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
case presentationWe report on a German leprosy patient originating from Pakistan who had a relapse more than 5 years after completion of multi-drug therapy (MDT) of his first episode of multibacillary (MB) leprosy. State-of-the-art laboratory techniques (histopathology, PGL-I serology, microscopy and DNA/RNA qPCR) were applied for laboratory confirmation and monitoring of treatment outcome. Serology indicated the relapse long before the presence of unambiguous clinical signs. At the time of diagnosis of the relapse the patient had a remarkably high bacterial load suggesting increased risk for a second relapse. Furthermore, unexpectedly prolonged excretion of viable bacilli through the upper respiratory tract for more than 3 months after onset of MDT was shown. Therefore, MDT was administered for 2 years. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsThe clinical course of the patient, as well as the prolonged excretion of viable bacilli, underlines the usefulness of laboratory assessment. Laboratory tools including up-to-date molecular assays facilitate rapid diagnosis, timely MDT, identification of individuals excreting viable bacilli and patients at risk for relapses, monitoring of treatment outcome and respective adaptation of treatment where appropriate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31456174What 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.