Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22022631›Full record

ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2011

Evaluation of qPCR-based assays for leprosy diagnosis directly in clinical specimens.

Alejandra Nóbrega Martinez, Marcelo Ribeiro-Alves, Euzenir Nunes Sarno, Milton Ozório Moraes

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 111 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Assessment of Antimicrobial Resistance in M. leprae Strains From Kiribati.Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Real-Time PCR-Based Detection ofJournal of tropical medicine · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. qPCR detection ofFrontiers in molecular biosciences · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alejandra Nóbrega MartinezLaboratório de Hanseníase, Instituto Oswaldo Cruz-FIOCRUZ, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Marcelo Ribeiro-Alves
Euzenir Nunes Sarno
Milton Ozório Moraes
Fundação Oswaldo Cruz · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increased reliability and efficiency of the quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) makes it a promising tool for performing large-scale screening for infectious disease among high-risk individuals. To date, no study has evaluated the specificity and sensitivity of different qPCR assays for leprosy diagnosis using a range of clinical samples that could bias molecular results such as difficult-to-diagnose cases. In this study, qPCR assays amplifying different M. leprae gene targets, sodA, 16S rRNA, RLEP and Ag 85B were compared for leprosy differential diagnosis. qPCR assays were performed on frozen skin biopsy samples from a total of 62 patients: 21 untreated multibacillary (MB), 26 untreated paucibacillary (PB) leprosy patients, as well as 10 patients suffering from other dermatological diseases and 5 healthy donors. To develop standardized protocols and to overcome the bias resulted from using chromosome count cutoffs arbitrarily defined for different assays, decision tree classifiers were used to estimate optimum cutoffs and to evaluate the assays. As a result, we found a decreasing sensitivity for Ag 85B (66.1%), 16S rRNA (62.9%), and sodA (59.7%) optimized assay classifiers, but with similar maximum specificity for leprosy diagnosis. Conversely, the RLEP assay showed to be the most sensitive (87.1%). Moreover, RLEP assay was positive for 3 samples of patients originally not diagnosed as having leprosy, but these patients developed leprosy 5-10 years after the collection of the biopsy. In addition, 4 other samples of patients clinically classified as non-leprosy presented detectable chromosome counts in their samples by the RLEP assay suggesting that those patients either had leprosy that was misdiagnosed or a subclinical state of leprosy. Overall, these results are encouraging and suggest that RLEP assay could be useful as a sensitive diagnostic test to detect M. leprae infection before major clinical manifestations.

Indexed as

Bacterial ProteinsBacteriological TechniquesBiopsyHumansLeprosyMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesMycobacterium lepraeReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSensitivity and SpecificitySkinBacterial ProteinsRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID22022631
PMCPMC3191141
OpenAlexW2033112850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.