Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31961871›Full record

SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2020

Test accuracy of polymerase chain reaction methods against conventional diagnostic techniques for Cutaneous Leishmaniasis (CL) in patients with clinical or epidemiological suspicion of CL: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Luz Estella Mesa, Rubén Manrique, Carlos Muskus, Sara M Robledo

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Cutaneous leishmaniasis in Afghanistan.Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Luz Estella MesaPECET- Medical Research Institute, School of Medicine, University of Antioquia-UdeA, Calle, Medellín-Colombia.ORCID 0000-0003-3556-8977
Rubén ManriqueEpidemiology and Biostatistic, Universidad CES Calle, Medellín-Colombia.
Carlos MuskusPECET- Medical Research Institute, School of Medicine, University of Antioquia-UdeA, Calle, Medellín-Colombia.
Sara M RobledoPECET- Medical Research Institute, School of Medicine, University of Antioquia-UdeA, Calle, Medellín-Colombia.ORCID 0000-0003-2752-4931
Universidad de Antioquia · COClínica CES · CO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMolecular diagnostic tests, notably polymerase chain reaction (PCR), are highly sensitive test for Leishmania detection, which is especially relevant in chronic cutaneous lesion with lower parasite load. An accurate diagnosis is essential because of the high toxicity of the medications for the disease. Nevertheless, diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is hampered by the absence of a reference standard. Assuming that the PCR-based molecular tools are the most accurate diagnostic method, the objective of this systematic review was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of PCR-based molecular tools in a meta-analysis of the published literature. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsA search of the published literature found 142 papers of which only 13 studies met the selection criteria, including conventional PCR, real-time PCR, Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA), polymorphism-specific PCR (PS-PCR). The sensitivities of the individual studies ranged from 61% to 100%, and specificities ranged from 11% to 100%. The pooled sensitivities of PCR in smears were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90 to 0.98), and the specificity was 0.91(95% CI, 0.70 to 0.98). In general population, estimates were lower in aspirates, skin biopsies and swab samples with 0.90 (95% CI, 0.80 to 0.95) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.76 to 0.94) for sensitivity and specificity, respectively. The specificity was lower in consecutive studies, at 0.88 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.98) and its CI were wider. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: No statistically significant differences between the accuracy in smears, aspirate, skin biopsies or swabs samples were observed. Therefore, a simple smear sample run by PCR, instead more invasive samples, may be enough to obtain a positive diagnosis of CL. The results for PCR in all samples type confirm previous reports that consider PCR as the most accurate method for the diagnosis of CL.

Indexed as

BiopsyDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansLeishmaniaLeishmaniasis, CutaneousReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificitySkin

Identifiers

PMID31961871
PMCPMC6994169
OpenAlexW3002449752

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.