ArticleJournal of tropical medicine2026
Optimizing a Conventional Multiplex PCR for Simultaneous Detection of Granulomatous Skin Infection Agents:
Article in Journal of tropical medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Optimizing a Conventional Multiplex PCR for Simultaneous Detection of Granulomatous Skin Infection Agents:Journal of tropical medicine · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays are well-established molecular techniques that can be integrated as standard diagnostic tools, especially in referral settings. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic potential of a multiplex PCR (mPCR) assay for the diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL), skin tuberculosis, and leprosy. Method: A cross-sectional study was carried out involving 62 patients in the study group, comprising 45 with CL, 9 with leprosy, 4 with skin tuberculosis, and 4 with coinfections. Additionally, 112 positive control DNA samples were analyzed, including 37 of Results: Sensitivity and specificity of the mPCR on positive and negative control samples were 100% (95% CI: 96.8%-100%) and 100% (95% CI: 94.9%-100%), respectively. Its sensitivity and specificity among the study group were 75.8% (95% CI: 63.3%-85.8%) and 100% (95% CI: 94.9%-100.0%), respectively. Conclusions: With further validation on more clinical suspects, mPCR has the potential to facilitate diagnosis in settings with coendemic CL, leprosy, and skin tuberculosis.
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.