ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2024
Validation of the performance of a point of care molecular test for leprosy: From a simplified DNA extraction protocol to a portable qPCR.
Article 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 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative analysis of the leprosy detection rate regarding its clinical spectrum through PCR using theFrontiers in microbiology · 2024Pooled it
- Towards point-of-care diagnostics of neglected tropical diseases using nucleic acid amplification tests.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Review
- Laboratory and functional tests in leprosy diagnosis: a practical guide for clinical decision-making.Anais brasileiros de dermatologiaReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The study aimed to optimize qPCR reactions using oligonucleotides from the first Brazilian molecular diagnostic kit for leprosy on a portable platform (Q3-Plus). In addition, we sought to develop a simplified protocol for DNA extraction that met point-of-care criteria. During optimization on the Q3-Plus, optical parameters, thresholds, and cutoffs for the 16S rRNA and RLEP targets of M. leprae were established using synthetic DNA, purified DNA from M. leprae, and pre-characterized clinical samples. For the simplified extraction protocol, different lysis solutions were evaluated using chaotropic agents, and purification was carried out by transferring the lysed material to FTA cards. The complete protocol (simplified extraction + qPCR on the portable platform) was then evaluated with pre-characterized clinical skin biopsy samples and compared with standard equipment (QuantStudio-5). LOD95% for the optimized reactions was 113.31 genome-equivalents/μL for 16S rRNA and 17.70 genome-equivalents/μL for RLEP. Among the lysis solutions, the best-performing was composed of urea (2 M), which provided good dissolution of the skin fragment and a lower Ct value, indicating higher concentrations of DNA. The complete technological solution showed a sensitivity of 52% in reactions. Our results highlight the need for additional optimization to deal with paucibacillary samples, but also demonstrate the feasibility of the portable platform for the qPCR detection of M. leprae DNA in low infrastructure settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.