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)