ArticleIranian journal of parasitology
Comparative Analysis of Microscopy, Leishmanin Skin Test (LST), and Direct Agglutination Test (DAT) for the Diagnosis of Human Cutaneous Leishmaniasis.
Article in Iranian journal of parasitology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cutaneous Leishmaniasis (CL) is a highly infectious parasitic disease in Iran. Although various diagnostic methods are available, identifying a sensitive and specific approach remains essential for effective treatment and disease management. We aimed to compare microscopy, the Methods: Fifty samples were obtained from clinically suspected CL cases. The results of conventional methods, including microscopy, the LST, and the DAT, were then compared among these samples. For microscopical examination considered a gold standard, smears were stained with Giemsa 10% and then examined for the observation of amastigote forms for the LST, 0.1 ml of standard Results: Out of 50 samples collected from individuals suspected of CL, 66% (33/50) of them showed positive results using microscopic examination. Among these 33 patients diagnosed with CL, 9% (3/33) tested positive in the LST, and only 1 (3%) patient showed specific antibodies against Conclusion: The microscopy method appears to be more suitable for diagnosing CL. However, there is a clear need for additional diagnostic methods with more validity for CL.
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.