4.0 Article

Leptospirosis in febrile patients with suspected diagnosis of dengue fever

期刊

BMC RESEARCH NOTES
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1186/s13104-021-05627-3

关键词

Acute febrile illnesses; Leptospirosis; DENV; Tropical disease

资金

  1. Incentives for Research of the Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas, Lima-Peru [UPC-A-081-2020]
  2. Bio & Medical Technology Development Program of the National Research Foundation (NRF) - Korean government (MSIT) [2016M3A9B8942289]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2016M3A9B8942289] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to determine the prevalence of leptospirosis among febrile patients with a suspicious clinical diagnosis of dengue fever in northern Peru. Results showed that out of 276 serum samples analyzed from patients with acute febrile illness and suspected diagnosis for dengue virus, an etiological agent was identified in 47.5% of patients, with 30.4% testing positive for DENV, 11.2% for leptospirosis, and 5.9% for co-infection by both pathogens. Additionally, no differences in symptomatology were observed among the different study groups.
Objective This study was carried out to determine the prevalence of leptospirosis among febrile patients with a suspicious clinical diagnosis of dengue fever in northern Peru. Results A total of 276 serum samples from patients with acute febrile illness (AFI) and suspected diagnosis for dengue virus (DENV) were analyzed. We identified an etiological agent in 121 (47.5%) patients, DENV was detected in 30.4% of the cases, leptospirosis in 11.2% and co-infection by both pathogens was observed in 5.9% of the patients. In this study the most common clinical symptoms reported by the patients were: headache 89.1%, myalgias 86.9% and arthralgias 82.9%. No differences in symptomatology was observed among the different study groups.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据