ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2025
A Multicenter evaluation of leprosy rapid test Fast ML Flow Hanseníase in Brazil.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Implementation of ML Flow for leprosy contacts in Brazil: Opportunities, pitfalls, and safeguards.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeLeprosy represents a public health concern; its diagnosis remains clinical. Recently, the Brazilian public health system/SUS incorporated the leprosy-specific IgM anti-PGL-I rapid test Fast ML Flow Hanseníase (MLFH/Bioclin, Brazil; originally ML Flow) to aid leprosy contacts surveillance and diagnosis. Anti-PGL-I antibody levels correlate with bacterial load. This multicenter study evaluated MLFH performance in confirmed leprosy cases from four Brazilian reference centers.
methodsMLFH results were compared to anti-PGL-I ELISA, bacilloscopy/BI and analyzed in indeterminate/I, pure neuritic/PN and in Ridley Jopling/RJ categories (tuberculoid/TT, borderline-tuberculoid/BT, borderline/BB, borderline-lepromatous/BL, lepromatous/LL). Leprosy patients' serum samples (N = 158; 95 multibacillary/MB, 63 paucibacillary/PB) were evaluated. Additionally, 20 previously tested leprosy samples were distributed to each center to assess MLFH repeatability, inter-center and inter-operator reproducibility.
resultsHigher MLFH seropositivity (84.8%) compared to ELISA (60.8%; p < 0.001) and bacilloscopy (50.6%; p < 0.001), indicated moderate and fair agreement, respectively. Visual intensity readings (0 to 4 + range) from 20 samples showed excellent agreement (ICC: 0.954); test repeatability was 95.57%. Compared to ELISA and bacilloscopy, positivity difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05) in TT, BT, and I forms. Lower MLFH positivity was observed in indeterminate, BT and PN forms.
conclusionThe change in MLFH result criteria adopted by Bioclin/SUS considering faint test line (0.5) as positive (originally negative in ML Flow), increased MLFH sensitivity leading to higher seropositivity in MB and especially in PB, known as weak antibody producers. However, when screening asymptomatic leprosy contacts, this modified criterion may lead to reduced specificity since in endemic areas, anti-PGL-I positivity alone does not necessarily indicate active disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39953368What 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.