02682nas a2200217   4500000000100000008004100001653001200042653001100054653001500065100001600080700002600096700001400122700001700136700001400153245015300167856006600320300000700386490000900393520204800402022001402450       2018                            d10aleprosy10aELISAs10aAntibodies1 aEspinosa OA1 aBenevides Ferreira SM1 aPalacio F1 aCortela DDCB1 aIgnotti E00aAccuracy of Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assays (ELISAs) in Detecting Antibodies against  in Leprosy Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.  uhttp://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/cjidmm/2018/9828023.pdf  a110 v20183 a<p>IgM against 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). The titers of antibodies against these antigens vary with operational classification. The 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 . Studies were found via PubMed, the Virtual Health Library Regional Portal, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde, Índice Bibliográfico Espanhol de Ciências de Saúde, 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. The 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. The 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.</p>
  a1712-9532