ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2025
Exploration of tongue dorsum sampling to support clinical diagnosis of leprosy patients in the Comoros: A cross-sectional study.
Article in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThe accuracy of the WHO-endorsed clinical leprosy diagnosis depends on the expertise of health care workers. For molecular confirmation of clinically diagnosed patients, skin biopsies have the highest sensitivity to detect Mycobacterium leprae. As less invasive tongue swabs showed promising results for qPCR-based M. tuberculosis detection, this study investigated the presence of M. leprae on the tongue dorsum of clinically diagnosed leprosy patients. METHODS AND
findingsDuring the activities of the (BE-)PEOPLE study, 499 clinically diagnosed, consenting patients from the Comoros were recruited. Samples collected included skin biopsies from active lesions, nasal swabs, tongue swabs, and, in some cases, tongue scrapes. M. leprae DNA was quantified with the RLEP qPCR assay and human mitochondrial DNA was quantified as sample adequacy control (SAC). On 18.1% (90/498) of tongue swabs and 13.2% (12/91) of tongue scrapes M. leprae DNA was detected. In only six patients tongue scrapes outperformed the tongue swab based on the number of bacilli/sample. Except for two paucibacillary (PB) patients, all 100/102 positive tongue samples were from multibacillary (MB) patients. Only patients with a RLEP-positive skin biopsy and positive bacteriological index (BI) yielded M. leprae DNA on the tongue scrape. The skin biopsy samples had a sensitivity of 92.5% (248/268) for MB and 74.3% (130/175) for paucibacillary (PB) patients. Nasal swabs were positive for 60.2% (162/269) of MB but only 2.2% (5/229) of PB patients.
conclusionThis is the first study to identify M. leprae bacilli on the tongue dorsum of clinically diagnosed leprosy patients by RLEP qPCR. Due to low positivity rates, tongue sampling has limited added value over skin biopsies and nasal swabs for the microbiological confirmation of leprosy. However, the mouth in general and the tongue specifically remain interesting sampling sites to gain further insights on the distribution of M. leprae bacilli in the body and potential transmission modes.
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.