1990
DOI: 10.4269/ajtmh.1990.42.36
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cutaneous Leishmaniasis in Guatemala: Comparison of Diagnostic Methods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
43
3
15

Year Published

1995
1995
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 74 publications
(63 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
43
3
15
Order By: Relevance
“…Confirmation of the CL infection was based on either observation of amastigotes in thin smears obtained from the edge of the ulcer and stained with Giemsa stain, or by culture of promastigotes from aspirates taken through the skin adjacent to the ulcer, following previously described methods. 14 Only patients with positive cultures or clearly distinguishable amastigotes entered the study. As reported in previous studies, most of the patients (75%) we studied are infected with L. braziliensis, and the rest (25%) are infected with L. mexicana [15][16][17] ; therefore, no characterization of Leishmania parasites was performed.…”
Section: Patientsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Confirmation of the CL infection was based on either observation of amastigotes in thin smears obtained from the edge of the ulcer and stained with Giemsa stain, or by culture of promastigotes from aspirates taken through the skin adjacent to the ulcer, following previously described methods. 14 Only patients with positive cultures or clearly distinguishable amastigotes entered the study. As reported in previous studies, most of the patients (75%) we studied are infected with L. braziliensis, and the rest (25%) are infected with L. mexicana [15][16][17] ; therefore, no characterization of Leishmania parasites was performed.…”
Section: Patientsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3 The parasitologic methods have always been considered first-choice procedures for the diagnosis of leishmaniasis due to their specificity of 100%, although with variable sensitivities. [4][5][6] However, in some instances it is very difficult to demonstrate the presence of parasites 7,8 and immunodiagnosis then becomes an important alternative for demonstrating the presence of the parasite. 9,10 The main line of defense against infection in ATL is the cell immune response.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The sensitivity of the smear varies in different reports, depending on the lesions duration and appearance, parasite strain and localities, even within the same region (Weigle et al 2002). Positive diagnosis of CL by the smear also varies greatly with the number of amastigotes in aspirate materials and sometimes requires an incubation period of up to 15-30 days (Navin et al 1990;Weigle et al 1987). In contrast, the IMC is much less susceptible to these parameters and provides a fast reading.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%