ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2024
Case detection delay in leprosy: Testing tool reliability and measurement consistency in Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Tanzania.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2024. 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.
- Accuracy of Ultrasound-Guided Ulnar Perineural Subcutaneous Aspirate for the Diagnosis and Control of Leprosy: Protocol for a Prospective Diagnostic Evaluation Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Transmission Patterns and Factors Influencing High Incidence of Leprosy among Indigenous Penan in Sarawak, Malaysia.Journal of community health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCase detection delay (CDD) in leprosy is defined as the period between the onset of the first signs and symptoms and the time of diagnosis. A tool, consisting of a questionnaire and a detailed guide for researchers, which includes photos of typical skin signs and notes on establishing the timing of events, was developed to determine this period of delay in months in recently diagnosed leprosy patients. The aims of the study were to determine the reliability and consistency of this CDD assessment tool.
methodsThis study was conducted in Ethiopia, Mozambique and Tanzania. Two types of consistency were considered: over time (test-retest reliability) and across different researchers (interrater reliability). A CDD questionnaire was administered to 167 leprosy patients who were diagnosed within 6 months prior to their inclusion. One month later, the same or another researcher re-administered the CDD questionnaire to the same patients. Both test-retest and interrater reliability were assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), where a value greater than or equal to 0.7 is considered acceptable.
resultsIn this study, 10 participants (6.0%) were under 15 years of age, and 56 (33.5%) were women. In the test-retest assessment, the mean CDD from the first and second interviews was 23.7 months (95% CI 14.4-34.8) and 24.0 months (95% CI 14.8-33.2), respectively. The ICC for test-retest reliability was 0.99 (95% CI 0.994-0.997). For the interrater reliability assessment, the first and second interviews revealed a mean CDD of 24.7 months (95% CI 18.2-31.1) and 24.6 months (95% CI 18.7-30.5), respectively, with an ICC of 0.90 (95% CI 0.85-0.94). A standard error of measurement of 0.46 months was found in the test-retest and 1.03 months in the interrater measurement. Most answers given by participants during the first and second interviews were matching (≥86%). Most non-matching answers were in the 0-2 month delay category (≥46%).
conclusionThe tool, including a questionnaire to determine the CDD of newly diagnosed leprosy patients, was validated in three African countries. The test-retest and interrater measurements demonstrated that the instrument is reliable and measures consistently. The tool can be used in routine leprosy programmes as well as in research settings.
trial registrationThis trial is registered with The Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), now available via International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) with registration number NL7294 (NTR7503), as well as with The Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR) with registration number PACTR202303742093429.
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.