SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2026
Efficacy and safety outcomes reported in human leptospirosis studies to inform the development of a core outcome and core outcome measurement set: 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLeptospirosis is a neglected bacterial zoonotic disease of global health importance, disproportionately affecting marginalised communities in tropical and subtropical settings. Current clinical trial evidence for leptospirosis treatments remains limited by heterogeneous outcome reporting and trial design. This systematic review represents the first comprehensive synthesis of outcomes, outcome measures, and treatments reported across human leptospirosis research to inform the development of a core outcome and outcome measurement set.
methodsThis systematic review was registered (COMET and PROSPERO: CRD42023397461) and conducted in accordance with a pre-published protocol. Global databases were searched for studies published on human leptospirosis without language or geographical restriction. Screening and full-text review were performed independently by two reviewers. Study characteristics, population, interventions, and reported outcomes, definitions and measurement tools were extracted. Quality and risk of bias assessments were performed. Outcomes were analysed descriptively and grouped thematically into domains.
resultsThis review included 298 studies from 63 countries. There were 172 unique outcome types extracted and categorized into 23 domains. The clinical/physiological core area was the most frequently reported, with the renal and urinary domain comprising a quarter of all studies. Individual outcomes that predominated included mortality (165/298 studies), discharge from clinical services (79/298), and days of hospitalisation (77/298). Patient focused and harms outcomes were under-reported across studies. Quality assessments highlighted considerable study bias which did not improve with increasing study rigour. There were 92 outcome measures extracted and categorized into 13 thematic areas and of note was the inconsistency in types of measures, absence of patient-reported outcomes, and need for standardised and validated outcome definitions. Data captured on treatments highlighted the variability in clinical management practices worldwide. DISCUSSION/
conclusionThis review highlights the heterogeneity in outcome reporting, outcome measures, and treatments across human leptospirosis research. Establishing a consensus on core outcomes and core outcome measurements that are clinically relevant, patient-centred, and robust is needed to better support evidence-based guidelines.
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.