Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23633403›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of infectious diseases2013

Clinical evaluation of a loop-mediated amplification kit for diagnosis of imported malaria.

Spencer D Polley, Iveth J González, Deqa Mohamed, Rosemarie Daly, Kathy Bowers, Julie Watson, Emma Mewse, Margaret Armstrong, Christen Gray, Mark D Perkins and 7 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of infectious diseases, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
21.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

93 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 158 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Field evaluation of a loop-mediated isothermal amplification test for detection ofCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Spencer D PolleyDepartment of Clinical Parasitology, Walk-in Clinic, Hospital for Tropical Diseases, University London Colleges NHS Foundation Trust, Mortimer Market, London WC1E 6JB, UK.
Iveth J González
Deqa Mohamed
Rosemarie Daly
Kathy Bowers
Julie Watson
Emma Mewse
Margaret Armstrong
Christen Gray
Mark D Perkins
David Bell
Hidetoshi Kanda
Norihiro Tomita
Yutaka Kubota
Yasuyoshi Mori
Peter L Chiodini
Colin J Sutherland
Institute of Parasitology · CZEiken Chemical (Japan) · JPFoundation for Innovative New Diagnostics · CHUniversity of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnosis of malaria relies on parasite detection by microscopy or antigen detection; both fail to detect low-density infections. New tests providing rapid, sensitive diagnosis with minimal need for training would enhance both malaria diagnosis and malaria control activities. We determined the diagnostic accuracy of a new loop-mediated amplification (LAMP) kit in febrile returned travelers.

methodsThe kit was evaluated in sequential blood samples from returned travelers sent for pathogen testing to a specialist parasitology laboratory. Microscopy was performed, and then malaria LAMP was performed using Plasmodium genus and Plasmodium falciparum-specific tests in parallel. Nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed on all samples as the reference standard. Primary outcome measures for diagnostic accuracy were sensitivity and specificity of LAMP results, compared with those of nested PCR.

resultsA total of 705 samples were tested in the primary analysis. Sensitivity and specificity were 98.4% and 98.1%, respectively, for the LAMP P. falciparum primers and 97.0% and 99.2%, respectively, for the Plasmodium genus primers. Post hoc repeat PCR analysis of all 15 tests with discrepant results resolved 4 results in favor of LAMP, suggesting that the primary analysis had underestimated diagnostic accuracy.

conclusionsMalaria LAMP had a diagnostic accuracy similar to that of nested PCR, with a greatly reduced time to result, and was superior to expert microscopy.

Indexed as

AdultBloodFemaleHumansMalaria, FalciparumMaleMicroscopyMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesParasitologyPlasmodium falciparumReagent Kits, DiagnosticSensitivity and SpecificityTravel MedicineReagent Kits, DiagnosticdiagnosticsLAMPmalaria

Identifiers

PMID23633403
PMCPMC3719897
OpenAlexW2119163251

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.