ArticleActa parasitologica2023
Diagnosis of Human Cutaneous Leishmaniasis: A Comparative Study Using CL Detect
Article in Acta parasitologica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Micro-costing from healthcare professional's perspective and acceptability of cutaneous leishmaniasis diagnostic tools in Morocco: A mixed-methods study.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIn most of the endemic areas, the detection of CL is based on searching for amastigotes using the direct smear method. Since expert microscopists are not usually available in every laboratory, false diagnoses are a disaster that happens. Therefore, the aim of current research is to evaluate the validity of the CL Detect
methodsA total of 70 patients with skin lesions suspected to be CL were recruited. Skin samples from the lesions were collected and used for direct microscopic examination and the PCR method. Furthermore, the skin sample was collected in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions for the CDRT-based rapid diagnostic test.
resultsOf 70 samples, 51 and 35 samples were positive by direct smear examination and the CDRT, respectively. The PCR showed positive results in 59 samples; 50 and 9 samples were identified as Leishmania major and Leishmania tropica, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated to be 68.6% (95% CI 54.11-80.89%) and 100% (95% CI 82.35-100%). When the results of CDRT were compared to the microscopic examinations, an agreement of 77.14% was seen between the CDRT and microscopic examination. In addition, the sensitivity and specificity were 59.32% (95% CI 45.75-71.93%) and 100% (95% CI 71.5-100%) when the CDRT was compared to PCR assay (as gold standard) and an agreement (65.71%) was found between CDRT and PCR assay.
conclusionAs the CDRT is simple, rapid, and does not require great proficiency, it is recommended for use in the detection of CL caused by L. major or L. tropica as a diagnostic method, especially in areas with limited access to expert microscopists.
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.