SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2026
Laboratory diagnosis of loiasis to support individual patient management: A systematic review.
Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLoiasis is a filarial disease caused by Loa loa, endemic to Central and West Africa. Cases are observed in migrants and occasionally travellers. Its diagnosis may be difficult due to the unspecific clinical picture and the high percentage of people who do not have microscopically detectable circulating microfilariae. We performed a landscape analysis of the laboratory-based diagnostic techniques available for loiasis and of their estimated sensitivity and specificity.
methodsWe performed a systematic review of cross-sectional, cohort, case-control, diagnostic accuracy, and clinical trial studies published in PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (searched on March 26th 2025), applying diagnostic assays for human loiasis. When possible, a proportional meta-analysis was performed by estimating sensitivity and specificity separately against eligible reference tests (direct assays or presence of "eyeworm" or their composite or latent class analysis) for each technique category (microscopy of thick smears or concentrated blood, PCR-based or LAMP-based molecular assay, and ELISA-based or rapid -RDT- serological assays). A random-effects model with the DerSimonian-Laird approach was applied. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
resultsNinety-nine publications were included in the landscape analysis and 27 were also eligible for performance assessment. Microscopy was applied in 91/99 (91.9%) studies, PCR-based techniques in 29/99 (29.3%), LAMP in 4/99 (4.0%), and serological assays in 19/99 (19.2%). Within techniques categories, characteristics were highly heterogeneous. Sensitivities ranged from 75.0-98.3% for thick blood smears, 48.2-99.9% for blood concentration techniques, 80.6-98.4% for PCR-based techniques, 88.5-98.1% for LAMP-based techniques, 81.9-90.5% for ELISA seroassays, and 43.6-88.0% for RDTs. Cross-reactivity of L. loa-specific seroassays with M. perstans and other parasitoses was limited (<10%).
conclusionsAssays for the diagnosis of loiasis are not standardized. ELISA-based serology and possibly PCR-based methods may be appropriate for screening. Microscopy must be performed even in case of negativity on screening when epidemiological or clinical factors suggestive of loiasis are present to plan safe treatment.
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.