ArticlePloS one2024
Quality of life of patients with cutaneous leishmaniasis: A comparative analysis of the EQ-5D-3L and CLIQ questionnaires.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Repurposing of Clomiphene Citrate and Its Antileishmanial and Antifungal Activities:Biomolecules · 2026Article
- The Cutaneous leishmaniasis impact questionnaire: Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation in adults with Cutaneous leishmaniasis in Ethiopia.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Effects of cutaneous leishmaniasis on health-related quality of life: A longitudinal approach.PloS one · 2025Observational
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the performance of the Cutaneous Leishmaniasis Impact Questionnaire (CLIQ) using the EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D-3L) as a reference standard (criterion validation); to evaluate the responsiveness of the instruments and estimate a cut-off point for the CLIQ to be able to discriminate between high and low impacts of cutaneous leishmaniasis on patients.
methodsBetween 2020 and 2022, a longitudinal validation study was conducted at a reference centre for leishmaniasis in Brazil. The EQ-5D-3L and CLIQ questionnaires were administered before, during and after treatment for cutaneous leishmaniasis. The correlation between the instruments was assessed using Spearman's correlation coefficient, responsiveness was assessed using the Wilcoxon test, and CLIQ cut-off points were proposed based on results of the EQ-5Q-3L, dichotomized between patients reporting no problems' and 'some or extreme problems'.
resultsThere were satisfactory correlation coefficients between the two instruments before (-0.596) and during treatment (-0.551) and a low correlation between the instruments after the end of treatment (-0.389). In general, the responsiveness of the instruments was satisfactory. The CLIC scores that maximized sensitivity and specificity for recognizing impaired health status before and during treatment were 7 points and 17 points, respectively. However, at the end of treatment, based on the results for the EQ-5D-3L, the CLIC was not able to discriminate between individuals with high and low impacts of the disease.
conclusionThe CLIQ corresponds well with the EQ-5D-3L when applied before and during treatment but does not seem to be appropriate for follow-up evaluations after the end of treatment.
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.