Table 1.
Definitions of the classified infection states described in the paper.
Table 2.
Distribution of subjects according to the infection state within each age and sex category and comparisons of these distributions between infection state categories.
Distributions by age categories were compared using the Fisher’s exact test, and distributions by sex were compared using the χ2 test.
Table 3.
Distribution of subjects according to their microfilaremia category within each age and sex category and comparisons of these distributions between microfilaremia categories.
Distributions by age and sex categories were compared using the Fisher’s exact test.
Fig 1.
Frequencies of signs and symptoms within the three loiasis infection states and in uninfected individuals as bar plots and adjusted p-values of inter group comparisons, if significant.
All intergroup comparisons are adjusted to sex, age and Mansonella PCR. * p-adj. <0.05; **p-adj. <0.01; *** p-adj. <0.001; * LN = No sign of loiasis infection; MF = detectable microfilaremia but no history of eye worm; EW = positive history of eye worm but no detectable microfilaria; EWMF = positive history of eye worm as well as detectable microfilaremia.
Fig 2.
Distribution of hematological findings including median and interquartile range of hemoglobin (A), total white blood cell count (B), absolute (C) and relative eosinophil counts (D) within the four infection states. Adjusted p-values of intergroup comparisons are provided if <0.05. All intergroup comparisons are adjusted to sex, age and positivity of Mansonella PCR. * p-adj. <0.05; **p-adj. <0.01; *** p-adj. <0.001; LN = No sign of loiasis infection; MF = detectable microfilaremia but no history of eye worm; EW = positive history of eye worm but no detectable microfilaria; EWMF = positive history of eye worm as well as detectable microfilaremia.
Fig 3.
Graphic presentation of the hematological and clinical findings within the study population.
3A is a diagram depicting the distribution and overlap of the diagnostic findings of history of eye worm, microfilaremia and eosinophilia in the study population (Eosinophilia data missing for 133 (10.8%) participants, see supporting information Table D). 3B depicts the distribution of the three mutually exclusive infection states in the same diagram based on diagnostic criteria. These include microfilaremic (MF), positive history of eye worm (EW), and individuals positive for both (EWMF). 3C displays the clinical outcome of eye worm positive loiasis and 3D the hematological outcome of microfilaremic loiasis in this schematic display. Note that these outcomes are not mutually exclusive, but overlap in individuals who are positive for both diagnostic criteria.