Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33636553›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology2021

Extraction-free RT-LAMP to detect SARS-CoV-2 is less sensitive but highly specific compared to standard RT-PCR in 101 samples.

John J Schellenberg, Margaret Ormond, Yoav Keynan

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical virology : the official publication of the Pan American Society for Clinical Virology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The diagnostic accuracy of seven commercial molecularExpert review of molecular diagnostics · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

3 authors.

John J SchellenbergLamp Diagnostics, 348 Redwood Ave., Winnipeg, Manitoba, R2W 1S2, Canada. Electronic address: schellenberg.john@microbiomeinstitute.ca.
Margaret OrmondOrmond Consulting, 863 Bannatyne Ave., Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3E 0W6, Canada. Electronic address: margaret@sunshinehousewpg.org.
Yoav KeynanDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, University of Manitoba, Room 507, Basic Medical Sciences Building, 745 Bannatyne Ave., Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3E 0J9, Canada. Electronic address: yoav.keynan@umanitoba.ca.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current scale of public and private testing cannot be expected to meet the emerging need for higher levels of community-level and repeated screening of asymptomatic Canadians for SARS-CoV-2. Rapid point-of-care techniques are increasingly being offered to fill the gap in screening levels required to identify undiagnosed individuals with high viral loads. However, rapid, point-of-care tests often have lower sensitivity in practice. Reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) for SARS-CoV-2 has proven sensitive and specific and provides visual results in minutes. Using a commercially available kit for RT-LAMP and primer set targetting nucleocapsid (N), we tested a blinded set of 101 archived nasopharyngeal (NP) swab samples with known RT-PCR results. RT-LAMP reactions were incubated at 65 °C for 30 min, using heat-inactivated nasopharyngeal swab sample in viral transport medium, diluted tenfold in water, as input. RT-LAMP agreed with all RT-PCR defined negatives (N = 51), and all positives with cycle threshold (Ct) less than 20 (N = 24), 65% of positives with Ct between 20-30 (N = 17), and no positives with Ct greater than 30 (N = 9). RT-LAMP requires fewer and different core components, so may not compete directly with the mainline testing workflow, preserving precious central laboratory resources for those with the greatest need. Careful messaging must be provided when using less-sensitive tests, so that people are not falsely reassured by negative results, but this caveat must be weighed against the clear benefits of reliably identifying those with high levels of virus in prioritized samples at the point of care.

Indexed as

Point-of-Care TestingAsymptomatic DiseasesCanadaCOVID-19COVID-19 TestingHumansMass ScreeningMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesNasopharynxNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionRNA, ViralSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and SpecificityRNA, ViralExtraction-freeInstrument-freeIsothermal amplificationPoint-of-care testingRT-LAMPSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID33636553
PMCPMC7885624

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.