Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38560600›Full record

ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2024

Evaluation of Less Invasive Sampling Tools for the Diagnosis of Cutaneous Leishmaniasis.

Saskia van Henten, Mekibib Kassa, Helina Fikre, Roma Melkamu, Tigist Mekonnen, Dilargachew Dessie, Tadele Mulaw, Tadfe Bogale, Asinakew Engidaw, Arega Yeshanew and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Leishmaniasis.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Saskia van HentenDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6627-0474
Mekibib KassaLeishmaniasis Research and Treatment Center, University of Gondar Hospital, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Helina FikreLeishmaniasis Research and Treatment Center, University of Gondar Hospital, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Roma MelkamuLeishmaniasis Research and Treatment Center, University of Gondar Hospital, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Tigist MekonnenLeishmaniasis Research and Treatment Center, University of Gondar Hospital, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Dilargachew DessieLeishmaniasis Research and Treatment Center, University of Gondar Hospital, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Tadele MulawLeishmaniasis Research and Treatment Center, University of Gondar Hospital, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Tadfe BogaleLeishmaniasis Research and Treatment Center, University of Gondar Hospital, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Asinakew EngidawLeishmaniasis Research and Treatment Center, University of Gondar Hospital, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Arega YeshanewLeishmaniasis Research and Treatment Center, University of Gondar Hospital, Gondar, Ethiopia.
Lieselotte CnopsDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
Florian VogtDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
Karel G M MoonsJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Johan van GriensvenDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6581-2964
Myrthe PareynDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Belgium.
University of Gondar · ETInstituut voor Tropische Geneeskunde · BEAustralian National University · AUUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

dental broachdiagnosticsHarpera microbiopsymolecular biologytape stripping discs

Identifiers

PMID38560600
PMCPMC10977625
OpenAlexW4392771767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.