Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38746745›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2024

Luis C Ascanio, Savannah Carroll, Alberto Paniz-Mondolfi, Juan David Ramírez

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Multimodal graph learning for chagas disease classification.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Evaluation of Chagas TESA VirClia assay for chronicJournal of clinical microbiology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Chagas Disease: An Opportunistic Infection in AIDS.Current infectious disease reports · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Luis C AscanioMolecular Microbiology Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Molecular and Cell-based Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.
Savannah CarrollMolecular Microbiology Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Molecular and Cell-based Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.
Alberto Paniz-MondolfiMolecular Microbiology Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Molecular and Cell-based Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.
Juan David RamírezMolecular Microbiology Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Molecular and Cell-based Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Chagas disease (CD), caused by Methods: A literature search in PubMed was conducted on studies related to Results: Out of 85 studies included in the final review, 115 different tests were identified. These tests comprised 89 serological test types, 21 molecular test types, and 5 other test methods. Predominant serological tests included ELISA (38 studies, 44.70%), Rapid tests (19 studies, 22.35%), and chemiluminescence (10 studies, 11.76%). Among molecular tests, Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) assays were notable. Twenty-eight tests were approved globally for IVD or donor testing, all being serological methods. Molecular assays lacked approval for IVD in the United States, with only European and Colombian regulatory acceptance. Discussion and conclusion: Serological tests, specifically ELISAs, remain the most used and commercially available diagnostic methods. This makes sense considering that most Chagas disease diagnoses occur in the chronic phase and that the WHO gold standard relies on 2 serological tests to establish the diagnosis of chronic Chagas. ELISAs are feasible and relatively low-cost, with good performance with sensitivities ranging between 77.4% and 100%, and with specificities ranging between 84.2% and 100%. Molecular methods allow the detection of specific variants but rely on the parasite's presence, which limits their utility to parasitemia levels. Depending on the PCR method and the phase of the disease, the sensitivity ranged from 58.88 to 100% while the mean specificity ranged from 68.8% to 100%. Despite their performance, molecular testing remains mostly unavailable for IVD use. Only 3 molecular tests are approved for IVD, which are available only in Europe. Six commercial serological assays approved by the FDA are available for blood and organ donor screening. Currently, there are no guidelines for testing CD oral outbreaks. Although more evidence is needed on how testing methods should be used in special clinical scenarios, a comprehensive approach of clinical assessment and diagnostics tests, including not IVD methods, is required for an accurate CD diagnosis.

Indexed as

Chagas diseasediagnostic test approvalELISAPCRrapid diagnostic testreviewserologyTrypanosoma cruzi

Identifiers

PMID38746745
PMCPMC11091413

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.