Skip to main content

Table 4 Performance of the different diagnostic methods used for diagnosis of leishmaniasis

From: Prevalence of cutaneous leishmaniasis infection and clinico-epidemiological patterns among military personnel in Mullaitivu and Kilinochchi districts of the Northern Province, early war-torn areas in Sri Lanka

Diagnostic method Response category Percentage of respondents (n = 74) Percentage positivity for each technique (n = 74) P-value
Positive (n = 50) Negative (n = 24)
Microscopy—slit skin smear (SSS) Negative 31.1 (n = 23) 4.0 (n = 2) 87.6 (n = 21) < 0.001
Positive 66.3 (n = 49) 92.1 (n = 46) 12.6 (n = 3)
No smear/inconclusive 2.7 (n = 2) 4.0 (n = 2) 0 (n = 0)
Microscopy—lesion aspirate (LA) Negative 64.8 (n = 48) 48.0 (n = 24) 99.9 (n = 24) < 0.001
Positive 31.1 (n = 23) 46.0 (n = 23) 0 (n = 0)
No smear 1.4 (n = 1) 2.1 (n = 1) 0 (n = 0)
Microscopy—tissue impression smears (TIS) Negative 33.8 (n = 25) 8.0 (n = 4) 87.6 (n = 21) < 0.001
Positive 66.3 (n = 49) 92.1 (n = 46) 12.6 (n = 3)
Histopathology Negative 31.1 (n = 23) 20.0 (n = 10) 54.3 (n = 13) 0.004
Positive 69 (n = 21) 80.0 (n = 40) 45.9 (n = 11)
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) Negative 70.2 (n = 52) 59.9 (n = 30) 91.6 (n = 22) 0.004
Positive 29.7 (n = 22) 40.0 (n = 20) 8.3 (n = 2)
  1. Note: Individuals with skin lesions suspected to be CL who were confirmed to have leishmaniasis based on one or more diagnostic tests were considered as “positive for leishmaniasis” (n = 50), while the rest were considered as “negative for leishmaniasis” (n = 24)