ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2024
Evaluation of Less Invasive Sampling Tools for the Diagnosis of Cutaneous Leishmaniasis.
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A novel pan-Leishmania loop-mediated isothermal amplification (Loopamp) assay for diagnosis of cutaneous and visceral leishmaniasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Pooled it
- Report of the Seventh Post-Kala-Azar Dermal Leishmaniasis Consortium meeting, Kolkata, India, 28-29 November 2024.Parasites & vectors · 2026Article
- From Skin to Sequence: Pan-species Detection and Speciation of Leishmania.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Molecular diagnostics for cutaneous leishmaniasis: progress towards fulfilling the WHO target product profile.Parasitology · 2025Review
- Leishmaniasis.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025Review
- Molecular Assays on Cutaneous Swabs as an Effective, Non-Invasive Diagnostic Technique for Cutaneous Leishmaniasis: Results from a Retrospective Study Conducted in Italy.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Loopamp Leishmania detection kit for the diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis in Ethiopia.Parasites & vectors · 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
15 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) usually relies on invasive samples, but it is unclear whether more patient-friendly tools are good alternatives for diverse lesions when used with polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Methods: Patients with suspected CL were enrolled consecutively in a prospective diagnostic accuracy study. We compared dental broach, tape disc, and microbiopsy samples with PCR as index tests, using PCR with skin slit samples as reference test. Subsequently, we constructed a composite reference test including microscopy, the 3 index tests and skin slit PCR, and we compared these same tests with the composite reference test. We assessed diagnostic accuracy parameters with 95% confidence intervals for all comparisons. Results: Among 344 included patients, 282 (82.0%) had CL diagnosed, and 62 (18.0%) CL absence, by skin slit PCR. The sensitivity and specificity by PCR were 89.0% (95% confidence interval, 84.8%-92.1%) and 58.1% (45.7%-69.5%), respectively, for dental broach, 96.1% (93.2%-97.8%) and 27.4% (17.9%-39.6%) for tape disc, and 74.8% (66.3%-81.7%) and 72.7% (51.8%-86.8%) for microbiopsy. Several reference test-negative patients were consistently positive with the index tests. Using the composite reference test, dental broach, and skin slit had similar diagnostic performance. Discussion: Dental broach seems a less invasive but similarly accurate alternative to skin slit for diagnosing CL when using PCR. Tape discs lack specificity and seem unsuitable for CL diagnosis without cutoff. Reference tests for CL are problematic, since using a single reference test is likely to miss true cases, while composite reference tests are often biased and impractical as they require multiple tests.
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.