P Gurung1, C M Gomes2, S Vernal3, M M G Leeflang1. 1. Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Diagnostic Dermatology Group, Núcleo de Medicina Tropical, Pós-graduação em Ciências Médicas, Laboratório de Dermatomicologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Brasília - UnB, Brasília, Brazil. Electronic address: ciromgomes@gmail.com. 3. Departamento de Moléstias Infecciosas e Parasitárias, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; Divisão de Dermatologia, Departamento de Clínica Médica, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto-SP, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Owing to difficulties in the clinical diagnosis of leprosy, several complementary tests have been developed and used. The aim was to systematically summarize the accuracy of diagnostic tests for leprosy. METHODS: We searched for relevant articles in Embase, Medline, and Global Health databases, until June 2017. Studies evaluating the accuracy of any diagnostic techniques for differentiating between people with and without leprosy were included. Studies solely focusing on differentiating between the separate forms of leprosy were excluded. Our protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017071803). We assessed study quality using the QUADAS-2 checklist. A bivariate random effects regression model was used for the meta-analyses. RESULTS: We included 78 studies, most of those evaluating the detection of IgM antibodies against phenolic glycolipid I using ELISA. Sensitivity of the 39 studies evaluating ELISA was 63.8% (95% CI 55.0-71.8); specificity 91.0% (95% CI 86.9-93.9). The lateral flow test (nine studies) and the agglutination test (five studies) had a slightly higher sensitivity and a slightly lower specificity. Sensitivity of qPCR was (five studies) 78.5% (95% CI 61.9-89.2) and specificity 89.3% (95% CI 61.4-97.8). Sensitivity of conventional PCR was (17 studies) 75.3% (95% CI 67.9-81.5) and specificity 94.5% (95% CI 91.4-96.5). CONCLUSIONS: Although the test accuracy looks reasonable, the studies suffered from heterogeneity and low methodological quality.
OBJECTIVES: Owing to difficulties in the clinical diagnosis of leprosy, several complementary tests have been developed and used. The aim was to systematically summarize the accuracy of diagnostic tests for leprosy. METHODS: We searched for relevant articles in Embase, Medline, and Global Health databases, until June 2017. Studies evaluating the accuracy of any diagnostic techniques for differentiating between people with and without leprosy were included. Studies solely focusing on differentiating between the separate forms of leprosy were excluded. Our protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017071803). We assessed study quality using the QUADAS-2 checklist. A bivariate random effects regression model was used for the meta-analyses. RESULTS: We included 78 studies, most of those evaluating the detection of IgM antibodies against phenolic glycolipid I using ELISA. Sensitivity of the 39 studies evaluating ELISA was 63.8% (95% CI 55.0-71.8); specificity 91.0% (95% CI 86.9-93.9). The lateral flow test (nine studies) and the agglutination test (five studies) had a slightly higher sensitivity and a slightly lower specificity. Sensitivity of qPCR was (five studies) 78.5% (95% CI 61.9-89.2) and specificity 89.3% (95% CI 61.4-97.8). Sensitivity of conventional PCR was (17 studies) 75.3% (95% CI 67.9-81.5) and specificity 94.5% (95% CI 91.4-96.5). CONCLUSIONS: Although the test accuracy looks reasonable, the studies suffered from heterogeneity and low methodological quality.
Authors: Filipe Rocha Lima; Fred Bernardes Filho; Vanderson Mayron Granemann Antunes; Jaci Maria Santana; Regina Coeli Palma de Almeida; Diana Mota Toro; Vinicius Fozatti Bragagnollo; Gabriel Martins da Costa Manso; Natália Aparecida de Paula; Eliracema Silva Alves; Lee W Riley; Sérgio Arruda; Marco Andrey Cipriani Frade Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-06-09
Authors: Luis Alberto Ribeiro Froes; Mirian Nacagami Sotto; Maria Angela Bianconcini Trindade Journal: An Bras Dermatol Date: 2022-04-02 Impact factor: 2.113
Authors: Selma Regina Penha Silva Cerqueira; Lais Sevilha Dos Santos; Elaine Faria Morelo; Agenor de Castro Moreira Dos Santos Júnior; Carlos Augusto Felipe de Sousa; Renata Trindade Gonçalves; Gunter Hans Neto; Daniel da Silva Marques; Raimunda Nonata Ribeiro Sampaio; Patrícia Shu Kurizky; Ciro Martins Gomes Journal: Rev Soc Bras Med Trop Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 1.581
Authors: Ana Bárbara Sapienza Pinheiro; Patricia Shu Kurizky; Marina de Freitas Ferreira; Marco Antonio de Souza Mota; Jaqueline Santos Ribeiro; Edson Zuza de Oliveira Filho; Carlos Augusto Souza; Daniel Holanda Barroso; Raimunda Nonata Ribeiro Sampaio; Ciro Martins Gomes Journal: Rev Soc Bras Med Trop Date: 2020-04-27 Impact factor: 1.581
Authors: Miriãn Ferrão Maciel-Fiuza; Perpétua do Socorro Silva Costa; Thayne Woycinck Kowalski; Lavínia Schuler-Faccini; Renan Rangel Bonamigo; Rodrigo Vetoratto; Letícia Maria Eidt; Paulo Cezar de Moraes; Maria Irismar da Silva Silveira; Luis Marcelo Aranha Camargo; Sidia Maria Callegari-Jacques; Stela Maris de Jezus Castro; Fernanda Sales Luiz Vianna Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-01-24
Authors: Carmen Phang Romero; Rodolfo Castro; Pedro Emmanuel A do Brasil; Daniella R Pereira; Roberta Olmo Pinheiro; Cristiana M Toscano; Maria Regina Fernandes de Oliveira Journal: Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz Date: 2022-04-08 Impact factor: 2.743
Authors: Maria Stella Cochrane Feitosa; Gabriela Profírio Jardim Santos; Selma Regina Penha Silva Cerqueira; Gabriel Lima Rodrigues; Licia Maria Henrique da Mota; Ciro Martins Gomes Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-04-25