SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2026
Performance of recombinase polymerase amplification assay for cutaneous leishmaniasis detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC infectious 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSensitive and robust point-of-care (PoC) assays are urgently needed for the diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL). Recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA), an isothermal molecular assay, has shown promise for CL diagnosis using either a lateral-flow assay (LFA) or a mobile-suitcase-laboratory (MSL) platform. However, its diagnostic performance has been inconsistent across studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the pooled sensitivity and specificity of RPA for CL diagnosis.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted in Google Scholar, EMBASE, Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus to identify studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of RPA in suspected CL cases. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. Using the GRADE approach, certainty of evidence was evaluated. A bivariate random-effects model was applied to perform the meta-analysis using R and Stata 14.2.
resultsNine articles comprising 14 datasets were included, with sample sizes ranging from 18 to 226 participants. Sensitivity in individual studies ranged from 55% to 100%, while specificity varied from 36% to 100%. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 86% (95% CI: 72-93%, p < 0.001) and 93% (95% CI: 65-99%, p = 0.01), respectively, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.88 against microscopy and PCR. Subgroup analysis revealed that RPA-LFA had higher pooled sensitivity (93%, 95% CI: 78-98%) compared to MSL (69%, 95% CI: 51-83%). Blinding was unreported in 44% of the included studies, resulting in an unclear risk of bias that may skew the diagnostic accuracy results. The certainty of evidence for RPA sensitivity was rated as moderate.
conclusionsRPA demonstrated high specificity and good sensitivity for CL diagnosis but fell short of the 95% sensitivity threshold outlined in the WHO target product profile. In contrast to MSL, LFA appears to be a promising PoC method for diagnosing CL. Data on RPA-MSL remains limited, and its applicability to other Leishmania species causing CL is unclear. Future research should focus on the evaluation of RPA for Old World CL species and strains. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023451076. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.