Table 5.
Comparison between qRT-PCR-HRM (SYBR) and qRT-PCR TaqMan for diagnosis of leptospirosis in a clinical setting.
| Patients (N) suspected of Leptospirosis | Clinical samples | Leptospira | Diagnostic accuracy | Country (geographic area) |
Paper (year) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Serum (N) | Urine (N) | Detection method |
Molecular target | Nr. Positives (%) | Sensitivity | Specificity | Positive predictive value (PPV) |
Negative predictive value (NPV) |
|||
| 202 | 202* | 202* | qRT-PCR-HRM | lfb1 and secy | 46 (22.7) | 100 (90–100) | 100 (97–100) | 100 (90–100) | 100 (97–100) |
Portugal
(Azores) |
Current study |
| 295 | 253 plasma | 121 | qRT-PCR-HRM MAT |
lipL32
Ig |
15 (5.0) | 60 | 100 | 100 | 100 | Czech Republic | Cermakova Z. et al.22 |
| 235 | 235 | 0 | qRT-PCR-HRM MAT |
lipL32
Ig |
26 (11.0) | 30 | 100 | 100 | 100 | Uruguay | González S. et al.19 |
| 133 | 133 | 0 | qRT-PCR-HRM | secy | 26 (19.5) | 100 (70–100) | 100 (93–100) | NR | NR | Netherlands | Ahmed A. et al.17 |
| 266 | 133 blood |
0 | qRT-PCR TaqMan qRT-PCR TaqMan MAT Culture |
rrs PCR
lipL32 Ig Leptospira |
74 (55.6) 57 (42.8) 115 (86.4) 39 (29.3) |
56 (47–64) 43 (34–52) 86 (79–92) 29 (22–38) |
90 (83–94) 93 (88–97) 100 100 |
NR | NR | Thailand | Thaipadungpanit J. et al.18 |
| 787 | 785 | 644 | qRT-PCR TaqMan qPCR MAT Culture |
rrs
16S rRNA/LipL32 Ig Leptospira |
76 (9.7) 20 (2.5) 30 (3.8) 4 (0.5) |
50 (29.6–77.8) 53.9 (33.3–81.8) 15.8 (6.3–29.4) 25.0 (13.3–44.4) |
99.2 (99–99.5) 99.6 (99.2–100) 96.5 (96.2–96.9) 100 |
57.1 (42.9–71.4) 75 (50–100) 10 (3.3–20) 100 |
99 (97.3–99.7) 99.1 (97.6–99.7) 98.3 (96.7–98.9) 98.5 (96.7–99.4) |
Laos | Woods K. et al.21 |
| 150 | 150 | 0 | qRT-PCR TaqMan | lipL32 | 127 (84.6) | 29.1 (21.6–38.0) | 99 | NR | NR | Brazil (Salvador and Curitiba) | Riediger I. N. et al.33 |
*Analysed in duplicate; NR, not reported.