CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 152Reproductive tract infections researchGenital Health and DiseaseSyphilis Diagnosis and Treatment

The clinical diagnosis of genital ulcer disease in men.

DiCarlo, Richard P., Martin, David H.·1997·Clinical Infectious Diseases
DOI 10.1086/514548
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We report the sensitivity and specificity of physical examination findings for diagnosing primary syphilis, chancroid, and genital herpes. The physical features of genital ulcers in 446 men were measured in accordance with a quantitative scale. Two hundred-twenty of these men had an established, single microbiological diagnosis. Forty-five (20%) had primary syphilis, 118 (54%) had chancroid, and 57 (26%) had genital herpes. There was considerable overlap in the clinical presentation of these three diseases. The classic clinical sign complex attributed to primary syphilis (painless, indurated, clean-based ulcers) was only 31% sensitive but 98% specific. The classic presentation of a chancroid ulcer (a deep, undermined, purulent ulcer) was only 34% sensitive but 94% specific. The classic description of genital herpes ulcers (multiple, shallow, tender ulcers) was only 35% sensitive but 94% specific. Inguinal lymph node findings did not contribute significantly to clinical diagnostic accuracy. These data indicate that the clinical diagnosis of genital ulcer disease can be made with reasonable certainty only for a minority of patients. Rapid, sensitive, and specific diagnostic tests for syphilis, chancroid, and genital herpes are needed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/514548

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • After a complete diagnostic evaluation, >25% of patients who have genital ulcers might not have a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis.

    “After a complete diagnostic evaluation, >25% of patients who have genital ulcers might not have a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis (426).”

    From Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021 (2021) · cites this paper as [426]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
DiCarlo, R. P., & Martin, D. H.
Affiliations
Louisiana State University (US)
Corresponding author
DiCarlo, Richard P.
ORCID
Martin, David H.
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
1997-08
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
292-298
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
DOI
10.1086/514548
OpenAlex
W2106343489
Cited by
152
References
18
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
FWCI
6.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Infectious Diseases (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Genital Health and Disease
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Syphilis Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
genital ulcer disease, primary syphilis, chancroid, genital herpes, diagnosis, sensitivity and specificity, physical examination findings, inguinal lymphadenopathy, men
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Ceftriaxone, Cephalosporins, Chancre, Chancroid, Genitalia, Male, Herpes Genitalis, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Penicillin G, Penicillins, Predictive Value of Tests, Sensitivity and Specificity, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Syphilis, Ulcer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review