Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38748731›Full record

SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2024

Accuracy of rapid lateral flow immunoassays for human leptospirosis diagnosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Teerapat Nualnoi, Luelak Lomlim, Supawadee Naorungroj

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Laboratory Diagnosis of Leptospirosis.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

3 authors.

Teerapat NualnoiDepartment of Pharmaceutical Technology, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0003-3294-1975
Luelak LomlimDepartment of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand.
Supawadee NaorungrojDepartment of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-2840-327X

Funding

Prince of Songkla University Research Grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the last two decades, several rapid lateral flow immunoassays (LFIs) for the diagnosis of human leptospirosis were developed and commercialized. However, the accuracy and reliability of these LFIs are not well understood. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the accuracy of leptospirosis LFIs as well as the factors affecting the test efficiency using systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS AND

resultsOriginal articles reporting the accuracy of human leptospirosis LFIs against microagglutination tests (MAT) or immunofluorescent assays (IFA) were searched from PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, and selected as per pre-set inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 49 data entries extracted from 24 eligible records published between 2003 and 2023 were included for meta-analysis. A meta-analysis was performed using STATA. The quality of the included studies was assessed according to the revised QUADAS-2. Only nine studies (32.1%) were considered to have a low risk of bias and no concern for applicability. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated to be 68% (95% confidence interval, CI: 57-78) and 93% (95% CI: 90-95), respectively. However, the ranges of sensitivity (3.6 - 100%) and specificity (53.5 - 100%) of individual entries are dramatically broad, possibly due to the heterogeneity found in both study designs and LFIs themselves. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that IgM detection has better sensitivity than detection of IgG alone. Moreover, the test performance seems to be unaffected by samples from different phases of infection.

conclusionsThe pooled specificity of LFIs observed is somewhat acceptable, but the pooled sensitivity is low. These results, however, must be interpreted with caution because of substantial heterogeneity. Further evaluations of the LFIs with well-standardized design and reference test will be needed for a greater understanding of the test performance. Additionally, IgM detection type should be employed when leptospirosis LFIs are developed in the future.

Indexed as

LeptospirosisSensitivity and SpecificityAntibodies, BacterialHumansImmunoassayLeptospiraReproducibility of ResultsAntibodies, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID38748731
PMCPMC11132494

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.