ArticlePLoS neglected tropical diseases2025
Diagnostic heterogeneity in scrub typhus serology: A scoping review of IFA thresholds and regional standardisation needs (2005-2024).
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. 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.
- Imaging in scrub typhus - a pictorial review.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Rickettsial seropositivity in Lao PDR smallholder livestock farms: Implications for animal and human health.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Article
- Development of chimeric monoclonal antibodies as standardised positive controls in rickettsial serodiagnosis.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Neglected rickettsial diseases in Southeast Asia: Twenty-five years of progress in surveillance, diagnostics, and clinical research.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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) remains the most widely used reference method for diagnosing scrub typhus. However, inconsistent cut-off thresholds and strain selections across studies hinder standardisation and complicate cross-regional comparisons. This scoping review examines diagnostic heterogeneity in IFA-based scrub typhus serology and assesses the need for region-specific standardisation.
methodsWe conducted a systematic search of peer-reviewed literature published between January 2005 and May 2024 across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Studies were included if they employed IFA for diagnosing or conducting seroepidemiological investigations of scrub typhus and reported specific IgM or IgG titre thresholds. Data were extracted regarding IFA methodology, antigen strains used, titre cut-offs for positivity, sample populations, and geographic settings. The studies were mapped and synthesised to identify trends, methodological diversity, and regional variation in IFA practices.
resultsA total of 84 studies met the inclusion criteria, covering 16 countries across Asia-Pacific and South Asia. The diagnostic cut-off titres for IgM ranged widely from 1:10 to 1:25,600, with considerable variability both within and between countries. Many studies lacked a clearly stated rationale for threshold selection or did not reference region-specific validation. Antigen panels were often limited to prototype strains (e.g., Karp, Gilliam, Kato), with few incorporating locally circulating genotypes. Seroprevalence estimates were significantly influenced by the selected cut-off and antigen composition. Only a minority of studies employed standardised or validated thresholds aligned with regional disease endemicity.
conclusionThis review underscores significant heterogeneity in IFA cut-offs and strain selection in scrub typhus serology, highlighting the urgent need for regionally validated diagnostic standards. Greater harmonisation of IFA protocols, including rational cut-off determination and inclusion of locally relevant strains, is crucial for improving diagnostic accuracy and informing surveillance and public health strategies.
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.