ArticleTransboundary and emerging diseases2022
Pre-test probability and likelihood ratios for clinical findings in canine leishmaniasis.
Article in Transboundary and emerging diseases, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- World Association for Veterinary Dermatology Consensus Statement for Diagnosis, and Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Treatment and Prevention of Canine Leishmaniosis.Veterinary dermatology · 2025Guideline
- Importance of Different Parameters for Monitoring Dogs withPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Antibody dynamics in dogs submitted to different canine visceral leishmaniasis treatment protocols.Revista brasileira de parasitologia veterinaria = Brazilian journal of veterinary parasitology : Orgao Oficial do Colegio Brasileiro de Parasitologia Veterinaria · 2025Article
- Pre-test probability and likelihood ratios for clinical findings in canine leishmaniasis.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Canine leishmaniasis is a parasitic zoonosis mainly caused by L. infantum; an obligate intracellular protozoan transmitted by haematophagous insects of the genus Phlebotomus, which affects dogs and wild canids. The clinical implications of this disease are highly variable, since infected animals may remain asymptomatic (absence of observable clinical signs) or present a wide spectrum of clinical alterations and degrees of severity, including the death of the animal. Symptoms such as lymphadenomegaly, alopecia, weight loss, keratoconjunctivitis and onychogryphosis are usually the first diagnostic reference available. The objectives of this study are to evaluate the validity (sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratios) and diagnostic utility (pre-test probability) of the clinical signs commonly associated with canine leishmaniasis based on the prevalence in the area and to explore the combination of symptoms that best predicts the diagnosis of canine leishmaniasis. It is a matched case-control study in the canine population of southern Spain based on the comparison of the findings collected in the clinical history and the results of the LeisSCAN quantitative ELISA. A total of 39 cases and 78 controls were analysed. Approximately 80% of the infected animals showed signs compatible with the disease. The most frequent alterations were cutaneous (64.1%), systemic (51.3%) and oculo-nasal (30.7%). The most useful signs to support this diagnosis were alopecia and epistaxis (LR+ 6.69 and 6.0, respectively) (pre-test leishmaniasis probability is ≥70% for prevalence ≥28% when alopecia or epistaxis is present), followed by lameness (LR+ 5.0). The combinations of signs that showed greater validity were alopecia with hyperkeratosis of the snout and alopecia with onychogryphosis (LR+ > 10). None of the observed signs or their combinations resulted useful to rule out the diagnosis (LR- 0.55 to 1.15). The results found show notable differences in the diagnostic value of the clinical signs, individually and in combination, so we believe that medical decisions should be based on their diagnostic validity (LR+) and the estimation of the pre-test and post-test probability.
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.