ReviewMicroorganisms2025
Diagnostic Advances in Leptospirosis: A Comparative Analysis of Paraclinical Tests with a Focus on PCR.
Review in Microorganisms, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Label-Free Graphene Quantum Dot-Based Fluorescent Aptasensor for Rapid and Sensitive Detection of Leptospira interrogans.Journal of fluorescence · 2026Article
- Molecular detection and genetic characterisation of a large flood-borne outbreak of human leptospirosis in Jakarta, Indonesia: A retrospective analysis of surveillance data.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Two Commercial qPCR Kits forTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2026Article
- Retrospective Molecular Detection and Characterization of PathogenicTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2026Article
- Early diagnosis and treatment of leptospirosis: Optimizing clinical outcomes.The Journal of infection · 2026Review
- 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Leptospirosis is a zoonotic disease with a varied clinical presentation that can mimic other infectious diseases, posing diagnostic challenges. While the Microscopic Agglutination Test (MAT) remains the gold standard for serological diagnosis, its limitations have led to increasing interest in polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as a rapid and sensitive diagnostic tool. This systematic review evaluates the role and clinical applications of PCR for diagnosing human leptospirosis. We analyzed the sensitivity and specificity of PCR, compared its performance with other diagnostic tests, and assessed the comparative utility of blood and urine samples for PCR testing. Our findings demonstrate that PCR has a high sensitivity and specificity, particularly in the early stages of the disease. Combining PCR with serological tests like MAT can maximize the diagnostic accuracy across different stages of illness. We recommend that PCR be considered a first-line diagnostic test for suspected leptospirosis, especially when rapid diagnosis is crucial. Further research is needed to standardize PCR protocols and explore its potential in differentiating
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.