ArticlePloS one2020
Comparison of real time and malachite-green based loop-mediated isothermal amplification assays for the detection of Plasmodium vivax and P. falciparum.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Field evaluation of a loop-mediated isothermal amplification test for detection ofCurrent research in parasitology & vector-borne diseases · 2026Article
- Malaria diagnosis using a combined system of a simple and fast extraction method with a lyophilised Dual-LAMP assay in a non-endemic setting.Pathogens and global health · 2024Article
- Evaluation of A Simple DNA Extraction Method and Its Combination with Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Assays for RapidTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Article
- Two-Stage Detection of Plasmodium spp. by Combination of Recombinase Polymerase Amplification and Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Assay.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2022Article
- Drug resistance and population structure of Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax in the Peruvian Amazon.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Usefulness of a commercial LAMP assay for detection of malaria infection, including Plasmodium knowlesi cases, in returning travelers in Spain.BMC research notes · 2022Article
- Multicopy targets for Plasmodium vivax and Plasmodium falciparum detection by colorimetric LAMP.Malaria journal · 2021Article
- Article
- Diagnostic Methods for Non-Falciparum Malaria.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021Review
- Genomic surveillance of Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax cases at the University Hospital in Tegucigalpa, Honduras.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.