Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27192199›Full record

SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2016

Anti-PGL-1 Positivity as a Risk Marker for the Development of Leprosy among Contacts of Leprosy Cases: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Maria Lucia F Penna, Gerson O Penna, Paula C Iglesias, Sonia Natal, Laura C Rodrigues

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Self-healing in leprosy: A systematic review.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Glycosylation profile ofiScience · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Challenges and advances in serological and molecular tests to aid leprosy diagnosis.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Lepra Bubalorum, a Potential Reservoir ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2021
    Review
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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Maria Lucia F PennaEpidemiology Department, Instituto de Saúde da Comunidade, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niteroi, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
Gerson O PennaUniversidade de Brasília, Brasília, DF, Brasil.
Paula C IglesiasEpidemiology Department, Instituto de Saúde da Comunidade, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niteroi, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil.
Sonia NatalUniversidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brasil.
Laura C RodriguesDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Public Health, London, England.
Instituto de Saúde · BRLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBUniversidade de Brasília · BRUniversidade Federal de Santa Catarina · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is no point of care diagnostic test for infection with M. Leprae or for leprosy, although ELISA anti PGL-1 has been considered and sometimes used as a means to identify infection.

methodsA systematic review of all cohort studies, which classified healthy leprosy contacts, at entry, according to anti-PGL1 positivity, and had at least one year follow up. The outcome was clinical diagnosis of leprosy by an experienced physician. The meta-analysis used a fixed model to estimated OR for the association of PGL-1 positivity and clinical leprosy. A fixed model also estimated the sensibility of PGL-1 positivity and positive predictive value.

resultsContacts who were anti PGL-1 positive at baseline were 3 times as likely to develop leprosy; the proportion of cases of leprosy that were PGL-1 positive at baseline varied but was always under 50%.

conclusionsAlthough there is a clear and consistent association between positivity to anti PGL-1 and development of leprosy in healthy contacts, selection of contacts for prophylaxis based on anti PGL1 response would miss more than half future leprosy cases. Should chemoprophylaxis of controls be incorporated into leprosy control programmes, PGL1 appears not to be a useful test in the decision of which contacts should receive chemoprophylaxis.

Indexed as

Antibodies, BacterialAntigens, BacterialCohort StudiesEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayFemaleGlycolipidsHumansImmunoglobulin GLeprosyMaleMycobacterium lepraePredictive Value of TestsRisk FactorsAntibodies, BacterialAntigens, BacterialGlycolipidsImmunoglobulin Gphenolic glycolipid I, Mycobacterium leprae

Identifiers

PMID27192199
PMCPMC4871561
OpenAlexW2394485885

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.