Skip to main content

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Front. Microbiol.
Sec. Infectious Agents and Disease
Volume 15 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1497319

Comparative analysis of the leprosy detection rate regarding its clinical spectrum through PCR using the 16S rRNA gene: A scientometrics and meta-analysis

Provisionally accepted
Marcos Jessé Abrahão Silva Marcos Jessé Abrahão Silva 1,2*Thiago P. Brasil Thiago P. Brasil 3Caroliny S. Silva Caroliny S. Silva 2Cristiane C. Frota Cristiane C. Frota 3Daniele M. Sardinha Daniele M. Sardinha 2Luiza Raquel T. Figueira Luiza Raquel T. Figueira 2Keitty Anne S. Neves Keitty Anne S. Neves 2Everaldina C. dos Santos Everaldina C. dos Santos 1Karla Valéria B. Lima Karla Valéria B. Lima 1Nédia D. Ghisi Nédia D. Ghisi 4Luana Nepomuceno G. Lima Luana Nepomuceno G. Lima 1
  • 1 Evandro Chagas Institute, Ananindeua, Brazil
  • 2 Universidade do Estado do Pará, Belem, Para, Brazil
  • 3 Federal University of Ceara, Fortaleza, Ceará, Brazil
  • 4 Federal Technological University of Paraná Dois Vizinhos, Dois Vizinhos, Paraná, Brazil

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Leprosy is a chronic and disabling infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium leprae. It has a wide clinical spectrum and is operationally classified into paucibacillary (PB) and multibacillary (MB) cases. Evidence shows that the 16S rRNA gene can be used in Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) for complementary detection with high sensitivity and specificity. However, there is no literature convention on its diagnostic correspondence regarding the particular operational classification of the disease. This study aimed to correlate, through a meta-analysis, the detection rate of leprosy between the PCR method with the 16S rRNA gene in the clinical forms PB and MB concerning confirmed cases. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis study conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, using the search descriptors with “AND”: “Leprosy”; “Polymerase Chain Reaction”; “16S rRNA” in the PUBMED, SciELO, LILACS, and Science Direct databases. The search was limited to original observational articles in Portuguese, English, or Spanish, with no defined time frame. The methodological quality assessment of the selected articles was performed using the JBI checklists. A scientometric approach to the article used the VOS Viewer and Scimago Graphica software. The meta-analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analyses software, under Pearson's Correlation effect test and fixed effect model and subgroup analysis concerning the type of sample analyzed. The study was significant from the perspective of the paucibacillary group (Clinical biopsy: -0.45 [95% CI= -0.63 – -0.22], p<0.001/ Slit smear skin: -0.52 [95% CI= -0.65 – -0.36], p<0.001 / Overall: -0.50 [95% CI= -0.61 – -0.37], p<0.001). The PCR diagnostic method for the 16S rRNA gene of M. leprae has low viability and diagnostic sensitivity in both clinical biopsy samples and leprosy skin smears. This implies little validation of it as a PCR target gene for diagnosing the disease, highlighting limitations in the actual technique.

    Keywords: Paucibacillary leprosy, Multibacillary leprosy, diagnosis, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Mycobacterium leprae

    Received: 16 Sep 2024; Accepted: 07 Oct 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Silva, Brasil, Silva, Frota, Sardinha, Figueira, Neves, dos Santos, Lima, Ghisi and Lima. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Marcos Jessé Abrahão Silva, Evandro Chagas Institute, Ananindeua, Brazil

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.