SynthesisActa parasitologica2025
qPCR as a Tool for the Diagnosis of Visceral and Cutaneous Leishmaniasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Acta parasitologica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of new screening tools to evaluate dog exposure to Phlebotomus tobbi and Phlebotomus papatasi sand flies.Parasites & vectors · 2026Article
- Molecular diagnostics for cutaneous leishmaniasis: progress towards fulfilling the WHO target product profile.Parasitology · 2025Review
- CRISPR-driven diagnostics: Molecular mechanisms, clinical efficacy and translational challenges.Clinical and translational medicine · 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
introductionEnsuring accuracy in the diagnosis of leishmaniasis is crucial due to the myriad of potential differential diagnoses. Given the inherent limitations of serological techniques, real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) emerges as a superior alternative. Furthermore, parasitological methods, conventionally regarded as the gold standard owing to their high specificity, encounter challenges concerning sensitivity and invasiveness for patients. In this context, the present study aims to assess, via meta-analysis, the performance of qPCR in diagnosing visceral and cutaneous leishmaniasis.
methodThis meta-analysis encompassed studies published between January 2011 and December 2022, sourced from six databases (PubMed, LILACS, Scopus, Scielo, EMBASE, and Web of Science), utilizing the keywords "qPCR," "molecular diagnosis," and "leishmaniasis." Epidemiological studies focusing on the efficacy of qPCR for leishmaniasis diagnosis were included. Data such as study demographics, geographic locations, sampling techniques, and the number of positive qPCR results were aggregated and analyzed to derive overall positivity rates, sensitivity, and specificity values associated with qPCR. Heterogeneity analysis was conducted on the data to select appropriate models, and the collective efficacy data of qPCR were illustrated in forest plots.
resultsFifty-four studies met all inclusion criteria. The positivity rates for human visceral and cutaneous leishmaniasis were 27.07% (95% CI: 17.81-36.33%) and 60.40% (95% CI: 30.23-90.57%), respectively. In cases of visceral leishmaniasis in dogs, cats, and wild animals, the positivity rates were 26.55% (95% CI: 21.40-31.70%), 0.92% (95% CI: 0.09-1.75%), and 28.98% (95% CI: 21.86-35.10%), respectively. Analysis of the selected studies revealed high overall sensitivity and specificity values achieved with qPCR, at 91.08% (95% CI: 81.77-100.39%) and 98.08% (95% CI: 97.13-99.03%), respectively.
conclusionThis study indicates that qPCR is a highly sensitive and specific tool, adequately suitable for the diagnosis of human visceral and cutaneous leishmaniasis, as well as visceral leishmaniasis in animals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39777570What 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.