Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24696020›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2014

Loop-mediated isothermal amplification for rapid and semiquantitative detection of Loa loa infection.

Papa M Drame, Doran L Fink, Joseph Kamgno, Jesica A Herrick, Thomas B Nutman

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Research and reports in tropical medicine · 2018
    Review
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Papa M DrameLaboratory of Parasitic Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Doran L FinkLaboratory of Parasitic Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Joseph KamgnoCentre for Research on Filariasis and other Tropical Diseases, Yaounde, Cameroon Faculty of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, University of Yaounde I, Yaounde, Cameroon.
Jesica A HerrickLaboratory of Parasitic Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Thomas B NutmanLaboratory of Parasitic Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA TNUTMAN@niaid.nih.gov.

Funding

Molecular Definition Of Filarial And Related Nonfilarial Genes And ProteinsZIAAI000512 · NIAID · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES · PI NUTMAN, THOMAS · 2009 to 2025
$9.9M
Intramural NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rapid and accurate tests are currently needed to identify individuals with high levels of Loa loa microfilaria (mf), so that these individuals may be excluded from mass ivermectin administration campaigns against onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis being conducted in areas where Onchocerca volvulus, Wuchereria bancrofti, and L. loa are coendemic. To address this need, colorimetric loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assays targeting the L. loa-specific gene sequences LLMF72 and LLMF342 were developed for the detection and quantification of L. loa microfilaremia. Both LAMP assays were highly specific (100%) for L. loa infection compared to the absence of infection or infection with related filarial pathogens. The LLMF72-based LAMP assay showed greater analytic sensitivity (limit of detection, 0.1 pg/ml of genomic DNA [gDNA] and/or 5 mf/ml) than the LLMF342-based LAMP assay (10 pg/ml of gDNA and/or 50 mf/ml), and its analytic sensitivity was similar to that of LLMF72-based quantitative PCR (qPCR). A high level of correlation was observed between microfilaria counts as determined by LLMF72-based qPCR and time to positivity by the LAMP assay, and performance measures of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were similar for both assays when applied to field-collected clinical samples. By simply varying the run time, the LAMP assay was able to accurately distinguish individuals at risk for serious adverse events (SAEs) after exposure to ivermectin, using thresholds of >5,000 mf/ml and >30,000 mf/ml as indicators of increasing levels of risk. In summary, LLMF72 LAMP represents a new molecular diagnostic tool that is readily applicable as a point-of-care method for L. loa microfilarial detection and quantification in resource-limited countries where L. loa infection is endemic.

Indexed as

AnimalsColorimetryDNA PrimersHumansLoaLoiasisMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesPoint-of-Care SystemsPredictive Value of TestsSensitivity and SpecificityDNA Primers

Identifiers

PMID24696020
PMCPMC4042750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.