ArticleParasite epidemiology and control2026
Comparative evaluation of parasitological, serological, and molecular methods for the diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis in the Garmian area, Kurdistan region of Iraq.
Article in Parasite epidemiology and control, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is a neglected tropical disease and remains a significant public health issue in many endemic regions. Accurate diagnosis is often challenging due to the broad spectrum of clinical manifestations, which can resemble other dermatological conditions. Therefore, highly sensitive and specific diagnostic methods are essential to ensure proper identification and management of the disease. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted between December 2019 and March 2020 at Kalar General Hospital in the Garmian area, Kurdistan Region of Iraq, and enrolled 85 patients with clinically suspected CL. Diagnosis was based on dermatological examination or ongoing antileishmanial treatment. Specimens were collected from cutaneous lesions using fine needle aspiration for direct microscopic examination and molecular analysis. Additionally, venous blood samples were obtained for serological testing using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Diagnostic performance was assessed for four methods: direct microscopy, ELISA, conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and nested PCR. Nested PCR served as the comparative reference method rather than an independent gold standard; agreement of the other assays with nested PCR was expressed as positive percent agreement (PPA) with 95% confidence intervals and Cohen's κ. Results: Among the 85 patients, CL was confirmed in 84 (98.82%) cases by nested PCR, 71 (83.53%) by conventional PCR, 64 (75.29%) by direct microscopy, and 45 (52.94%) by ELISA. Relative to nested PCR, the positive percent agreement was 84.5% for conventional PCR, 76.2% for direct microscopy, and 53.6% for ELISA. Because only one case was nested-PCR-negative, specificity could not be reliably estimated and is not reported. Conclusions: Nested PCR showed the highest detection rate and is a valuable tool for CL diagnosis, particularly in cases with low parasite load. Because nested PCR served as the reference method, formal diagnostic accuracy could not be established, and larger studies employing an independent reference standard (culture, sequencing, or a composite standard) are warranted. In contrast, ELISA showed poor diagnostic performance and should not be relied upon as a standalone test for CL. Incorporating molecular techniques, especially nested PCR, into routine diagnostic protocols is recommended to improve early detection and effective management of cutaneous leishmaniasis.
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.