ArticleAccess microbiology2020
Evaluation of LAMP for detection of
Article in Access microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Azithromycin for Bacterial Watery Diarrhea: A Reanalysis of the AntiBiotics for Children With Severe Diarrhea (ABCD) Trial Incorporating Molecular Diagnostics.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2024Trial
- Isothermal nucleic acid amplification techniques: A comprehensive overview on their principle & applications as alternative to PCR.Practical laboratory medicine · 2026Review
- Can Wastewater Surveillance Enhance Genomic Tracking of Climate-Driven Pathogens?Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Self-Sampled Gargle Water Direct RT-LAMP as a Screening Method for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infections.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) for the detection of
methodsConsecutive stool samples from children aged <13 years old who presented with acute watery diarrhoea or dysentery to the Department of Paediatrics were collected and processed in the Department of Microbiology. All the stool samples were subjected to culture, conventional PCR and LAMP. Genomic sequencing was performed for samples that were positive by LAMP but negative by both culture and conventional PCR. The LAMP results were compared to those from culture and to a composite reference standard based on culture and conventional PCR.
resultsAmongst the 374 stool samples tested, 291 samples were positive by LAMP and 213 were positive by the composite reference standard. The sensitivity of LAMP was 100 % (98.3-100 %) and its specificity was 51.6 % (43.6-59.5 %) with a disease prevalence of 57 %. The sensitivity and specificity of LAMP improved to 99.3 % (94.2-100) and 98.2 % (94.5-99.9), respectively, using latent class analysis, while assuming that genomic sequencing has perfect specificity. DISCUSSION: The authors have standardized the LAMP procedure for direct application to clinical stool samples. LAMP is a sensitive and specific method for the diagnosis of
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.