02952nas a2200217 4500000000100000008004100001653001200042653001000054653002300064100001600087700002600103700001400129700001700143700001400160245017200174856026000346300000700606490000900613520209800622022001402720 2018 d10aleprosy10aELISA10aAntibody detection1 aEspinosa OA1 aBenevides Ferreira SM1 aPalacio F1 aCortela DDCB1 aIgnotti E00aAccuracy of Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays (ELISAs) in Detecting Antibodies against Mycobacterium leprae in Leprosy Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis uhttp://scholar.google.nl/scholar_url?url=http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/cjidmm/2018/9828023.pdf&hl=nl&sa=X&d=2234831465116987917&scisig=AAGBfm0fx4jovNz6WiH0PrQAahF6AK_3Qg&nossl=1&oi=scholaralrt&hist=732gnZIAAAAJ:2504567022825440215:AAGBfm0gWrMt_sHg a110 v20183 a
IgM against Mycobacterium leprae may be detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) based on phenolic glycolipid I (PGL-I) or natural disaccharide octyl bovine serum albumin (ND-O-BSA) as antigens, and the IgG response can be detected by an ELISA based on lipid droplet protein 1 (LID-1). %e titers of antibodies against these antigens vary with operational classification. %e aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of ELISAs involving PGL-I and ND-O-BSA with that involving LID-1. We included studies that analyze multibacillary and paucibacillary leprosy cases and evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of ELISAs based on LID-1 and/or PGL-I or ND-O-BSA as antigens to measure antibody titers against M. leprae. Studies were found via PubMed, the Virtual Health Library Regional Portal, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciˆencias da Sa´ude, ´Indice Bibliogr´afico Espanhol de Ciˆencias de Sa´ude, the Brazilian Society of Dermatology, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Cochrane Library, Embase (the Elsevier database), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies served as a methodological validity tool. Quantitative data were extracted using the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Sensitivity, specificity, and a diagnostic odds ratio were calculated, and a hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic curve and forest plots were constructed. %e protocol register code for this meta-analysis is PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017055983. Nineteen studies were included. ND-O-BSA showed better overall performance in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio when compared with PGL-I and LID-1. %e multibacillary group showed better performance on these parameters (than the paucibacillary group did), at 94%, 99%, 129, 0.05, and 2293, respectively. LID-1 did not provide any advantage regarding the overall estimate of sensitivity in comparison with PGL-I or ND-O-BSA.
a1712-9532