ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2025
Development and Validation of In-House Conventional and Multiplex PCR Methods for the Detection and Identification of Lophomonas spp.: An Innovative Approach.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Frequency, Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of Pediatric Lophomoniasis: A Cross-Sectional Study in Northern Iran.Pediatric pulmonology · 2026Article
- [From ICU to recovery: recurrent pneumonia due to Lophomonas blattarum].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026Article
- Pulmonary infection due to emergingSAGE open medical case reports · 2026Article
- Clinical Insights and Diagnostic Challenges of Pulmonary Lophomoniasis in a Sarcoidosis Patient: A Case Report.Case reports in pulmonology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary lophomoniasis is an emerging disease caused by the protozoan pathogen Lophomonas spp. Recently, a conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method has been developed. However, its sensitivity and specificity remain to be fully established. Therefore, this study aimed to develop in-house conventional and multiplex PCR for the detection and identification of Lophomonas infections. Additionally, we attempted to compare the diagnostic performance of these novel PCR tests with the current microscopic examination method using BAL samples.
methodsWe studied 120 bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) specimens of the patients clinically suspected of having lophomoniasis. The specimens were examined using three methods: microscopic examination (Giemsa staining), in-house conventional PCR, and multiplex-PCR. Moreover, multiplex-PCR was used for the simultaneous identification of two species of Lophomonas.
resultsOut of the 120 BAL specimens tested, 30 (25%) tested positive through microscopic wet mount examination. Among the three techniques, multiplex-PCR was the most sensitive (100%, 95% CI, 88.3-100), while Giemsa staining had the lowest sensitivity (86.2%, 95% CI, 69.4-94.5). The data reveal a strong agreement between multiplex-PCR and conventional PCR (κ = 0.96), while the lowest agreement was found between multiplex-PCR and microscopy methods (κ = 0.16). The study also confirmed the presence of L. blattarum species in all samples using multiplex-PCR.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that the in-house multiplex-PCR is a robust and accurate diagnostic test for the detection and identification of Lophomonas species. Therefore, our findings suggest that this method may be a powerful tool to overcome some diagnostic pitfalls for lophomoniasis.
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.