Author
Listed:
- Jia-Yong Lam
- Gary Kim-Kuan Low
- Hui-Yee Chee
Abstract
Background: Leptospirosis is often difficult to diagnose because of its nonspecific symptoms. The drawbacks of direct isolation and serological tests have led to the increased development of nucleic acid-based assays, which are more rapid and accurate. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of genetic markers for the detection of Leptospira in clinical samples. Methodology and principle findings: A literature search was performed in Scopus, PubMed, MEDLINE and non-indexed citations (via Ovid) by using suitable keyword combinations. Studies evaluating the performance of nucleic acid assays targeting leptospire genes in human or animal clinical samples against a reference test were included. Of the 1645 articles identified, 42 eligible studies involving 7414 samples were included in the analysis. The diagnostic performance of nucleic acid assays targeting the rrs, lipL32, secY and flaB genes was pooled and analyzed. Among the genetic markers analyzed, the secY gene showed the highest diagnostic accuracy measures, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.56 (95% CI: 0.50–0.63), a specificity of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.97–0.98), a diagnostic odds ratio of 46.16 (95% CI: 6.20–343.49), and an area under the curve of summary receiver operating characteristics curves of 0.94. Nevertheless, a high degree of heterogeneity was observed in this meta-analysis. Therefore, the present findings here should be interpreted with caution. Conclusion: The diagnostic accuracies of the studies examined for each genetic marker showed a significant heterogeneity. The secY gene exhibited higher diagnostic accuracy measures compared with other genetic markers, such as lipL32, flaB, and rrs, but the difference was not significant. Thus, these genetic markers had no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy for leptospirosis. Further research into these genetic markers is warranted. Author summary: Leptospirosis is a globally important zoonotic disease is caused by Leptospira spp. This disease is often difficult to diagnose because its clinical manifestations resemble those of other diseases, such as dengue and malaria. Leptospirosis is often misdiagnosed, leading to improper medical management of patients. Accurate and timely diagnosis of the disease is important because antibiotic therapy is the most effective during the early stage. Nucleic acid assays are superior to most currently available diagnostics because they provide a definitive diagnosis during the acute stage of the disease even before antibodies are detectable. Nevertheless, the choice of genetic markers for these assays remains perplexing. Hence, this study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of these genetic markers by pooling and analyzing them simultaneously. Results revealed that nucleic acid assays targeting the secY gene of leptospires had better diagnostic accuracy with the three other genetic markers coming close with good diagnostic performance. With the heterogeneity observed, there is no clear cut answer as to which of these markers is the best for diagnosing leptospirosis. Nevertheless, the analyses in this study suggested that all four markers exhibited good diagnostic measures and are promising targets for the future development of nucleic acid-based diagnostics.
Suggested Citation
Jia-Yong Lam & Gary Kim-Kuan Low & Hui-Yee Chee, 2020.
"Diagnostic accuracy of genetic markers and nucleic acid techniques for the detection of Leptospira in clinical samples: A meta-analysis,"
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-22, February.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pntd00:0008074
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008074
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0008074. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.