01853nas a2200325   4500000000100000008004100001260000900042653002600051653002400077653001100101653001600112653001100128653002100139653001200160653002500172653000900197100001600206700001600222700001200238700001500250700001600265700001200281700002200293700001600315245010100331300001000432490001500442520105600457022001401513       2008                            d  c200810aAntibodies, Bacterial10aAntigens, Bacterial10aBiopsy10aGlycolipids10aHumans10aImmunoglobulin M10aleprosy10aMycobacterium leprae10aSkin1 aTeixeira AC1 aCruvinel DL1 aRoma FR1 aLuppino LF1 aResende LHP1 aSousa T1 aBührer-Sékula S1 aGoulart IMB00aEvaluation of the agreement between clinical and laboratorial exams in the diagnosis of leprosy.  a48-550 v41 Suppl 23 a<p>This study examined the correlation between the clinical and laboratory diagnosis of leprosy, using biopsy results from laboratories 'A' and 'B' and the ML Flow test. Clinical and histopathological diagnoses presented 67.6% agreement. The laboratories showed 73.7% agreement in the bacterial index and laboratory 'B' detected 25.4% more positives. The highest agreement was in the LL form and lowest, in the I form. The highest diagnostic discrepancy was for the BB form. Clinical diagnosis agreement was 41.3% for laboratory 'A' and 54% for 'B'. The ML Flow test reclassified 10.7% of the patients. The spectrum of leprosy classification is important for a clearer understanding of the disease and its proper treatment, but is not used in health services, which use the simplified WHO criteria. This could be complemented by ML Flow testing. Such simplification is unacceptable for Leprosy Reference Centers regarding patient attendance, teaching and research, for which the standardization of the Ridley-Jopling classification is recommended.</p>  a1678-9849