4.1 Article

Accuracy of an ELISA and indirect immunofluorescence for the laboratory diagnosis of American tegumentary leishmaniasis

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.trstmh.2008.12.019

关键词

Leishmaniasis; Sensitivity and specificity; Validation studies; Immunologic tests; Diagnostic techniques and procedures; Reliability and validity

资金

  1. CAPES
  2. CRLeish (SMS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We compared the accuracy of ELISA and indirect immunofluorescence (IIF) using Leishmania braziliensis and L. major-like antigens and antigens from the Bio-Manguinhos kit for serological diagnosis of American tegumentary leishmaniasis (ATL). Cut-off values were defined by the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve. For ELISA, statistical analyses revealed better accuracy [95.7% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100% positive predictive value (PPV), 97.5% negative predictive value (NPV)] and reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC): 0.940] for L. braziliensis antigen compared with L. major-like antigen (78.7% sensitivity, 82.8% specificity, 73.3% PPV, 86.6% NPV, ICC: 0.833). ELISA optical density values obtained for both antigens were higher in mucosal. forms of ATL. For 1117, sensitivity and specificity were 81.5 and 86.2%, respectively, for the L. braziliensis antigen, compared with 95.4 and 77.7% for the L. major-like antigen and 75.4 and 89.2% for the Bio-Manguinhos kit. No difference in the specificity of the IIF test was observed between antigens, whereas sensitivity differed between the L. braziliensis and L. major-like antigens and the Bio-Manguinhos kit. Parallel ELISA and IIF testing increased sensitivity, irrespective of the antigen employed,and serial testing increased overall specificity. These results Support the recommendation that ELISA employing L. braziliensis antigen be used as a diagnostic tool for suspected cases of ATL in L. braziliensis-endemic areas. (C) 2009 Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据