Assessment of the sensitivity and specificity of serological (IFAT) and molecular (direct PCR) techniques for diagnosis of leishmaniasis in lagomorphs using a Bayesian approach

Leishmaniasis, caused by Leishmania infantum, is a vector-borne zoonotic disease that is endemic to the Mediterranean basin. The potential of rabbits and hares to serve as competent reservoirs for the disease has recently been demonstrated, although assessment of the importance of their role on disease dynamics is hampered by the absence of quantitative knowledge on the accuracy of diagnostic techniques in these species. A Bayesian latent-class model was used here to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of the Immuno-fluorescence antibody test (IFAT) in serum and a Leishmania-nested PCR (Ln-PCR) in skin for samples collected from 217 rabbits and 70 hares from two different populations in the region of Madrid, Spain. A two-population model, assuming conditional independence between test results and incorporating prior information on the performance of the tests in other animal species obtained from the literature, was used. Two alternative cut-off values were assumed for the interpretation of the IFAT results: 1/50 for conservative and 1/25 for sensitive interpretation. Results suggest that sensitivity and specificity of the IFAT were around 70–80%, whereas the Ln-PCR was highly specific (96%) but had a limited sensitivity (28.9% applying the conservative interpretation and 21.3% with the sensitive one). Prevalence was higher in the rabbit population (50.5% and 72.6%, for the conservative and sensitive interpretation, respectively) than in hares (6.7% and 13.2%). Our results demonstrate that the IFAT may be a useful screening tool for diagnosis of leishmaniasis in rabbits and hares. These results will help to design and implement surveillance programmes in wild species, with the ultimate objective of early detecting and preventing incursions of the disease into domestic and human populations.

Aniseikonia tests: The role of viewing mode, response bias, and size-color illusions.

PURPOSE To identify the factors responsible for the poor validity of the most common aniseikonia tests, which involve size comparisons of red-green stimuli presented haploscopically. METHODS Aniseikonia was induced by afocal size lenses placed before one eye. Observers compared the sizes of semicircles presented haploscopically via color filters. The main factor under study was viewing mode (free viewing versus short presentations under central fixation). To eliminate response bias, a three-response format allowed observers to respond if the left, the right, or neither semicircle appeared larger than the other. To control decisional (criterion) bias, measurements were taken with the lens-magnified stimulus placed on the left and on the right. To control for size-color illusions, measurements were made with color filters in both arrangements before the eyes and under binocular vision (without color filters). RESULTS Free viewing resulted in a systematic underestimation of lens-induced aniseikonia that was absent with short presentations. Significant size-color illusions and decisional biases were found that would be mistaken for aniseikonia unless appropriate action is taken. CONCLUSIONS To improve their validity, aniseikonia tests should use short presentations and include control conditions to prevent contamination from decisional/response biases. If anaglyphs are used, presence of size-color illusions must be checked for. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE We identified optimal conditions for administration of aniseikonia tests and appropriate action for differential diagnosis of aniseikonia in the presence of response biases or size-color illusions. Our study has clinical implications for aniseikonia management.