Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32525900›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Comparison of real time and malachite-green based loop-mediated isothermal amplification assays for the detection of Plasmodium vivax and P. falciparum.

Keare A Barazorda, Carola J Salas, Danett K Bishop, Naomi Lucchi, Hugo O Valdivia

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Field evaluation of a loop-mediated isothermal amplification test for detection ofCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Diagnostic Methods for Non-Falciparum Malaria.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Review
  10. Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Keare A BarazordaDepartment of Parasitology, U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit 6 (NAMRU-6), Lima, Peru.
Carola J SalasDepartment of Parasitology, U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit 6 (NAMRU-6), Lima, Peru.
Danett K BishopDepartment of Parasitology, U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit 6 (NAMRU-6), Lima, Peru.
Naomi LucchiDivision of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria, Malaria Branch, Center for Global Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Hugo O ValdiviaDepartment of Parasitology, U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit 6 (NAMRU-6), Lima, Peru.ORCID 0000-0003-2159-5667
United States Naval Medical Research Unit SOUTH · PECenters for Disease Control and Prevention · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current context of malaria elimination requires urgent development and implementation of highly sensitive and specific methods for prompt detection and treatment of malaria parasites. Such methods should overcome current delays in diagnosis, allow the detection of low-density infections and address the difficulties in accessing remote endemic communities. In this study, we assessed the performance of the RealAmp and malachite-green loop mediated isothermal amplification (MG-LAMP) methodologies, using microscopy and conventional nested-PCR as reference techniques. Both LAMP techniques were performed for Plasmodium genus, P. falciparum, and P. vivax identification using 136 whole blood samples collected from three communities located in the Peruvian Amazon basin. Turnaround time and costs of performing the LAMP assays were estimated and compared to that of microscopy and nested-PCR. Using nested-PCR as reference standard, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity and 95% confidence interval (CI) for all methods. RealAmp had a sensitivity of 92% (95% CI: 85-96.5%) and specificity of 100% (95% CI: 89.1-100%) for species detection; sensitivity and specificity of MG-LAMP were 94% (95% CI: 87.5-97.8%) and 100% (89.1-100%), respectively. Whereas microscopy showed 88.1% sensitivity (95% CI: 80.2-93.7%) and 100% specificity (95%: 89.1-100%). The turnaround time and costs of performing the LAMP assays were lower compared to those associated with nested-PCR but higher than those associated with microscopy. The two LAMP assays were shown to be more sensitive and simple to implement than microscopy. Both LAMP methodologies could be used as large-scale screening tests, but the MG-LAMP assay uses a simple, portable heat-block while the RealAmp requires a RealAmp machine or a real-time PCR machine. This makes the MG-LAMP an appropriate choice for malaria surveillance studies in endemic sites. Use of LAMP tests in active case detection of Plasmodium parasites could help to detect positive malaria cases early.

Indexed as

TemperatureAdultFemaleHumansLimit of DetectionMalaria, FalciparumMalaria, VivaxMaleNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesOrganometallic CompoundsPlasmodium falciparumPlasmodium vivaxTime FactorsmalachiteOrganometallic Compounds

Identifiers

PMID32525900
PMCPMC7289405
OpenAlexW3034611204

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.