| Methods |
Study design: randomised, prospective clinical trial Setting/location: outpatient clinic of Basra teaching hospital, south Iraq Study period: April 2004 to March 2005 (11 months) Sample size calculation: not described |
|
| Participants |
Type of Leishmania: Leishmania major and L tropica Inclusion criteria: all patients with cutaneous leishmaniasis who were diagnosed clinically by the same dermatologist Exclusion criteria: ≥ 20 lesions; pregnancy, lactation; hypersensitivity to pentavalent antimonials or local anaesthetic; serious medical illness, lesion in proximity to mucous membranes, face, or cartilage; implanted metallic devices; unwillingness to avoid procreation for at least 2 months N randomised: 38 participants, 70 lesions: group 1 = 35, group 2 = 35 Withdrawals: group 1: 14 lesions; group 2: 8 lesions N assessed: lesions assessed: group 1: 21 (60%); group 2: 27 (77%) Age range: 1.5 to 64 years (1.5–45 years in group 1 and 3–64 years in group 2) with a mean of 21.1 years Sex: 52.5% males, 47.5% females Baseline data:
|
|
| Interventions |
Type of interventions:
Both drugs were injected into the lesions in amounts of 0.1–0.5 mL according to the size of the lesion Duration of intervention: 8 weeks |
|
| Outcomes |
Clinical cure: resolution of active lesion with or without scarring. A scoring system was specially designed as follows. The diameter of lesions was recorded in mm using a ruler and scored as: 0 (total healing); 1 (0 cm to < 0.5 cm); 2 (0.5 cm to < 1 cm); 3 (1 cm to < 1.5 cm); 4 (1.5 cm to < 2 cm); 5 (2 cm to < 2.5 cm); or 6 (≥ 2.5 cm). The degree of induration was assessed by palpation in comparison with the participant's normal skin and given the following scores: 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, or 3. The degree of erythema was assessed visually and scored as: 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, or 3. Ulceration was scored as: 1 (present) or 0 (absent). The scores of these 4 parameters were added to give a total score for each lesion. Time points reported: the changes in total score between weeks: lesions were assessed at the start and again at 2‐week intervals after treatment for 8 weeks: 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks of treatment. Follow‐up continued for 8 weeks until complete healing took place |
|
| Notes |
Study funding sources: none reported Possible conflicts of interest: none declared |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: insufficient detail was reported about the method used to generate the allocation sequence |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not reported |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Not reported; probably an open trial |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | Not reported; probably an open trial. No information on how lesions were assessed |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | After excluding participants who defaulted on treatment, 21/35 lesions were analysed in group 1 (HSCS) and 27/35 in group 2 (ciprofloxacin) |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Protocol not available. Not registered in a clinical trial registry. Pre‐specified outcomes of the review were reported. Tables were not available in the links of the journal, and .pdf does not work. No adverse effects reported in the text |
| Other bias | Unclear risk | There was not enough information in the publication to assess if there were other biases present. |