ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Histopathological evaluation of
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A randomized, open-label study of the tolerability and efficacy of one or three daily doses of ivermectin plus diethylcarbamazine and albendazole (IDA) versus one dose of ivermectin plus albendazole (IA) for treatment of onchocerciasis.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2023Trial
- The Death to Onchocerciasis and Lymphatic Filariasis (DOLF) project: Accomplishments and ongoing research.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Review
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 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Novel drugs or drug combinations that kill or permanently sterilize adult Material and methods: Two expert microscopists independently assessed 605 nodules by direct microscopy. At least two sections with two different stains hematoxylin & eosin (H&E, APR immunostain) of paraffin-embedded, ethanol-fixed whole-nodule cross-sections were analyzed. After variables were identified prone to observer discrepancies, we performed a second study to compare consolidated results for 100 nodules obtained by the two readers by microscopy and by analysis of scanned, high resolution digital images (20x magnification). The last data set analyzed was a quality panel of 100 nodules that has been previously examined by microscopy, and included additional immunostains for Results: The degree of agreement between assessors varied for different parameters. Agreement for female worm counts in nodules was approximately 80%, while agreement regarding female worm viability was 98%. There were no major differences observed between results obtained by microscopy or digital images. Good agreement for important parameters was also observed for the nodules of the quality panel. Conclusion: Nodule analysis by experienced microscopists was reproducible with regard to important parameters such as identification of living female worms or detection of normal embryogenesis. Assessments varied more for other parameters, and we recommend continued use of two independent readers for detailed analyzes. Analysis of scanned images provided similar results to direct microscopy. This facilitates training and comparison of nodule findings by readers in different locations. Analysis of high quality digital images that can be viewed remotely should improve the quality and availability of nodule assessments that are primary endpoints for onchocerciasis clinical trials.
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.