ArticleRevista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical2020
The accuracy of the Montenegro skin test for leishmaniasis in PCR-negative patients.
Article in Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, 2020. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- "High specificity of PCR in diagnosing mucocutaneous leshminiasis: a systematic review and meta analysis".BMC infectious diseases · 2024Pooled it
- An observational study to test the potency of GLP-grade phenol-free lyophilised leishmanin antigen formulation.EBioMedicine · 2026Article
- Automated Identification of Cutaneous Leishmaniasis Lesions Using Deep-Learning-Based Artificial Intelligence.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- 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
- A review of the leishmanin skin test: A neglected test for a neglected disease.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAs highly specific molecular biology-based techniques may not be sensitive enough for the diagnosis of American tegumentary leishmaniasis (ATL), clinicians frequently rely on immunological tests before treatment initiation. Hence, the correct combination of diagnostic tests is imperative for ATL diagnosis. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the Montenegro (Leishmanin) skin test (MST) in polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-negative patients to accurately detect ATL.
methodsPatients with a clinical picture compatible with ATL were divided into ATL (confirmed by lesion smear, culture indirect immunofluorescence, and/or histopathology) and no-ATL (diseases that can mimic leishmaniasis) groups. Conventional PCR for the minicircle kDNA of Leishmania was performed, and the MST was carried out for PCR-negative patients.
resultsNinety-nine patients were included in this study, including 79 diagnosed with ATL (6 with mucocutaneous leishmaniasis) and 20 without ATL (no-ATL group). The MST showed a high sensitivity of 90.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 69.90-97.21) in PCR-negative patients that was 10% higher than the sensitivity reported in PCR-positive population (79.66%; 95% CI = 67.73-87.96).
conclusionsOne of the most important reasons for PCR negativity among patients with active ATL is the presence of a strong cellular immunological response, especially in chronic and mucocutaneous leishmaniasis. This reinforces the considerable utility of the tests that detect cellular responses against Leishmania antigens such as the MST in PCR-negative patients when the performance in screening situations is questionable.
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.