Test accuracy of polymerase chain reaction methods against conventional diagnostic techniques for Cutaneous Leishmaniasis (CL) in patients with clinical or epidemiological suspicion of CL: Systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:24
|
作者
Mesa, Luz Estella [1 ,2 ]
Manrique, Ruben [2 ]
Muskus, Carlos [1 ]
Robledo, Sara M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Antioquia UdeA, Sch Med, PECET Med Res Inst, Medellin, Colombia
[2] Univ CES Calle, Epidemiol & Biostat, Medellin, Colombia
来源
PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES | 2020年 / 14卷 / 01期
关键词
DIRECT MICROSCOPY; PCR; IDENTIFICATION; SENSITIVITY; COLOMBIA; LESIONS; GIEMSA;
D O I
10.1371/journal.pntd.0007981
中图分类号
R51 [传染病];
学科分类号
100401 ;
摘要
Background Molecular diagnostic tests, notably polymerase chain reaction (PCR), are highly sensitive test for Leishmania detection, which is especially relevant in chronic cutaneous lesion with lower parasite load. An accurate diagnosis is essential because of the high toxicity of the medications for the disease. Nevertheless, diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) is hampered by the absence of a reference standard. Assuming that the PCR-based molecular tools are the most accurate diagnostic method, the objective of this systematic review was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of PCR-based molecular tools in a meta-analysis of the published literature. Methodology/Principal findings A search of the published literature found 142 papers of which only 13 studies met the selection criteria, including conventional PCR, real-time PCR, Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), recombinase polymerase amplification (RPA), polymorphism-specific PCR (PS-PCR). The sensitivities of the individual studies ranged from 61% to 100%, and specificities ranged from 11% to 100%. The pooled sensitivities of PCR in smears were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90 to 0.98), and the specificity was 0.91(95% CI, 0.70 to 0.98). In general population, estimates were lower in aspirates, skin biopsies and swab samples with 0.90 (95% CI, 0.80 to 0.95) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.76 to 0.94) for sensitivity and specificity, respectively. The specificity was lower in consecutive studies, at 0.88 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.98) and its CI were wider. Conclusions/Significance No statistically significant differences between the accuracy in smears, aspirate, skin biopsies or swabs samples were observed. Therefore, a simple smear sample run by PCR, instead more invasive samples, may be enough to obtain a positive diagnosis of CL. The results for PCR in all samples type confirm previous reports that consider PCR as the most accurate method for the diagnosis of CL.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 15
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Metagenomic Sequencing as a Pathogen-Agnostic Clinical Diagnostic Tool for Infectious Diseases: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies
    Govender, Kumeren N.
    Street, Teresa L.
    Sanderson, Nicholas D.
    Eyre, David W.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY, 2021, 59 (09)
  • [32] Clinical Frailty Scale as a predictor of short-term mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies on diagnostic test accuracy
    Lee, Ji Hwan
    Park, Yoo Seok
    Kim, Min Joung
    Shin, Hye Jung
    Roh, Yun Ho
    Kim, Ji Hoon
    Chung, Hyun Soo
    Park, Incheol
    Chung, Sung Phil
    [J]. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2022, 29 (11) : 1347 - 1356
  • [33] Reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction versus chest computed tomography for detecting early symptoms of COVID-19. A diagnostic accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis
    Duarte, Marcio Luis
    dos Santos, Lucas Ribeiro
    de Souza Contencas, Andrea Carla
    Iared, Wagner
    Peccin, Maria Stella
    Atallah, Alvaro Nagib
    [J]. SAO PAULO MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2020, 138 (05): : 422 - 432
  • [34] Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of rapid antigen detection tests to real time polymerase chain reaction in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Lee, Jonghoo
    Song, Jae-Uk
    Shim, Sung Ryul
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY, 2021, 144
  • [35] Accuracy of chest computed tomography and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction in diagnosis of 2019 novel coronavirus disease; a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Shokraee, Kamyar
    Mandavi, Hossein
    Panahi, Parsa
    Seirafianpour, Farnoosh
    Jahromizadeh, Amir Mohammad
    Tofighi, Rozhin
    Amirkafi, Ali
    Moosavi, Delaram
    Mahdavynia, Soheila
    Vaziri, Samira
    Dehghanbanadaki, Hojat
    Aazami, Hossein
    Kabir, Ali
    [J]. IMMUNOPATHOLOGIA PERSA, 2021, 7 (02):
  • [36] Diagnostic test accuracy of D-dimer with or without a clinical decision rule in peripartum patients with suspected venous thromboembolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Oh, Jeong S.
    Jayasimhan, Dilip
    Sithamparanathan, Sasiharan
    [J]. INTERNAL MEDICINE JOURNAL, 2023, 53 (11) : 2093 - 2101
  • [37] Value of pressure injury assessment scales for patients in the intensive care unit: Systematic review and diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis
    Zhang, Yi
    Zhuang, Yiyu
    Shen, Jiantong
    Chen, Xianggping
    Wen, Qiuyue
    Jiang, Qi
    Lao, Yuewen
    [J]. INTENSIVE AND CRITICAL CARE NURSING, 2021, 64
  • [38] Systematic review and meta-analysis of cancer studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy and prognostic values: approaches to improve clinical interpretation of results
    Jayaraj, Rama
    Kumarasamy, Chellan
    [J]. CANCER MANAGEMENT AND RESEARCH, 2018, 10 : 4669 - 4670
  • [39] Diagnostic and predictive accuracy of the Clinical Frailty Scale among hospitalised older medical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
    Leahy, Aoife
    O'Connor, Margaret
    Condon, Jennifer
    Heywood, Sarah
    Shanahan, Elaine
    Peters, Catherine
    Galvin, Rose
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2021, 11 (01):
  • [40] Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging techniques for treatment response evaluation in patients with head and neck tumors, a systematic review and meta-analysis
    van der Hoorn, Anouk
    van Laar, Peter Jan
    Holtman, Gea A.
    Westerlaan, Henriette E.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2017, 12 (05):