ArticleTropical medicine and infectious disease2024
Evaluation of Serological Tests for Different Disease Stages of Leptospirosis Infection in Humans.
Article in Tropical medicine and infectious disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A recombinant Loa22-based latex agglutination test and indirect ELISA for the sero-detection of leptospirosis in dogs and cattle.Archives of microbiology · 2026Article
- Retrospective Molecular Detection and Characterization of PathogenicTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2026Article
- Evaluation of a recombinant Loa22-gold nanoparticle based lateral flow assay for the serodiagnosis of leptospirosis in canine and bovine.Archives of microbiology · 2026Article
- A Guidance for Diagnosis, Control Measures, and Surveillance of Leptospirosis in Non-Human Primates From a Veterinary Perspective in a One-Health Approach.Journal of medical primatology · 2025Review
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
BACKGROUND/
objectivesLeptospirosis is a zoonotic disease that is widely distributed around the world and presents symptoms similar to other febrile illnesses in tropical regions, which complicates clinical diagnosis. This study aimed to evaluate the performance and agreement between serological diagnostic tests for detecting both acute and convalescent human leptospirosis, using the micro agglutination test (MAT) as a reference in an endemic region of the Colombian Caribbean.
methodsA prospective descriptive study was conducted on 275 participants with suspected leptospirosis. Paired serum samples were obtained, and an epidemiological survey was conducted. Using the MAT as the gold standard, we calculated positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity, specificity, and kappa index. A Bayesian latent class model was also used to compare the diagnostic tests.
resultsIn 223 paired serum samples, the sensitivity values for various stages of the disease ranged between 10.8% to 54.1% in the acute and 6.1% to 66.7% during the convalescent phase compared to the MAT. According to the Bayesian model, sensitivity was 9.5% to 75.3% in the acute phase and 5.7% to 85.3% in the convalescent phase. The Kappa value, an indicator of agreement, was moderate for the IgM ELISA in the acute phase (0.553) and substantial in the convalescent phase (0.692).
conclusionsThe MAT was the best confirmatory test in both acute and convalescent phases of leptospirosis. Despite the high specificity of ELISA, 21.62% of participants identified as negative by IgM-ELISA in both phases were subsequently confirmed as positive by the MAT. It is necessary to re-evaluate diagnostic guidelines that do not employ the MAT for confirmation and to enhance the diagnostic and clinical identification of leptospirosis within healthcare institutions and public health laboratories while providing a rapid and reliable test for its implementation.
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.