Abstract
We compared traditional cutaneous leishmaniasis diagnostic methods to filter paper lesion impression (FPLI) PCR for secondarily infected ulcers and nonulcerative lesions. The sensitivity and specificity of FPLI PCR for secondarily infected lesions (n = 8) were 100%. In primarily nonulcerative lesions (n = 15), the sensitivity of FPLI PCR was inferior to that of pooled-invasive-specimen PCR (72.7% versus 100%) (P = 0.10). FPLI PCR is sensitive, specific, and unlike invasive procedures, can be used in secondarily infected ulcers. Invasive specimen collection is superior in nonulcerative lesions.