ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2026
Travel history and occupation among diagnosed Cutaneous Leishmaniasis cases in Guyana: A multi-site retrospective case series, 2017-2021.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCutaneous Leishmaniasis (CL) in Guyana has not been systematically characterised in the peer-reviewed literature for several decades. This study aimed to describe the demographic, occupational, geographic, and clinical profile of diagnosed CL cases at Guyana's principal diagnostic sites, and to test, within this case series, whether field-based occupation is associated with reported interior travel and whether travel history is associated with time to presentation. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsRetrospective case series (chart review) of CL diagnoses recorded at three facilities in Georgetown and the interior (2017-2021). Of 223 available case records, a random subsample of 170 was abstracted. Occupation and interior travel were patient-declared; their association was tested directly, then via adjusted logistic regression. Most patients (61.8%) reported interior travel, and 45.3% held field-based occupations, chiefly mining and military. Interior travel was more common among field-based than non-field workers (84.4% vs 43.0%; OR = 7.18 [95% CI, 3.42-15.04]; p < .001), and this association persisted after adjustment for age and sex (OR = 7.08 [3.07-16.30]). Younger age was associated with interior travel (OR = 0.96 [0.94-0.98]; p = .001), whereas sex was not. The sample was predominantly male (81.8%; median age 33 years). Patients with interior travel presented earlier than those without (Mdn = 61 vs 243 days; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Most diagnosed CL cases in this series occurred in people reporting interior travel, predominantly those in field-based occupations, and this travel history was associated with earlier presentation. All participants had CL and there was no comparison group, so these findings describe the case population and associations within it rather than risk factors for acquiring infection; they also rest on a single, retrospectively recorded travel variable. They nonetheless indicate where pre-deployment prevention, occupational screening, and traveller advisories could be focused, and they support a case-control study with validated exposure measurement.
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.