ReviewInfection2026
Histoplasmosis in India: a systematic review of reported cases.
Review in Infection, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHistoplasmosis is a systemic fungal infection caused by Histoplasma capsulatum and is increasingly recognised in India, but its epidemiology, clinical spectrum, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes remain poorly characterised. We conducted a systematic review of reported cases from India.
methodsA PROSPERO-registered review (CRD42024556630) was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for studies published up to February 2025, without language restrictions. Two reviewers independently screened records and extracted individual patient-level data. Organ involvement was defined a priori using site-specific histopathological, cytological, microbiological, or molecular confirmation, with compatible clinico-radiological involvement accepted in confirmed cases. Descriptive and exploratory individual-level comparative analyses were performed.
resultsWe included 320 studies contributing 508 unique cases. Reporting increased markedly after 2015. Cases were geographically widespread, with the highest numbers from Delhi (16.9%), West Bengal (13.8%), Punjab (12.0%), Haryana (9.4%), Maharashtra (8.3%), Uttar Pradesh (7.7%), and Rajasthan (7.1%). The mean age was 47.6 years (SD 16.5), and 403/493 (81.7%) were male. Immunosuppression was documented in 188/508 (37.0%), most commonly HIV infection and diabetes mellitus. Disease was frequently extrapulmonary and multisystemic, with cutaneous (31.5%), adrenal (29.9%), lymph node (29.8%), hepatic (26.0%), and splenic (25.6%) involvement most common. Pulmonary disease occurred in 15.2% and central nervous system disease in 1.6%. Diagnosis relied predominantly on microscopy, histopathology, or cytology (98.6%); culture (28.0%), antigen detection (4.3%), and PCR (3.0%) were infrequently used. Amphotericin B was used in 262/388 (67.5%) cases with available data, and itraconazole in 306/390 (78.5%). Outcome data were available for 425 patients, of whom 62/425 (14.6%) died.
conclusionsReported histoplasmosis in India is geographically widespread and clinically heterogeneous, with prominent extrapulmonary and disseminated disease. These findings reflect published case patterns rather than true epidemiology, given selective reporting of severe, unusual, or biopsy-confirmed disease. Limited use of culture, antigen detection, and molecular diagnostics highlights important diagnostic gaps. Improved awareness, access to non-culture-based diagnostics, and prospective multicentre studies are needed to define the full clinical spectrum and burden of histoplasmosis in India.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42579065What 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.