ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2021
Initial evaluation of a mobile SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP testing strategy.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
31 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) control in the United States remains hampered, in part, by testing limitations. We evaluated a simple, outdoor, mobile, colorimetric reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) assay workflow where self-collected saliva is tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA. From July 16 to November 19, 2020, 4,704 surveillance samples were collected from volunteers and tested for SARS-CoV-2 at 5 sites. A total of 21 samples tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-LAMP; 12 were confirmed positive by subsequent quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) testing, while 8 were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and 1 could not be confirmed because the donor did not consent to further molecular testing. We estimated the RT-LAMP assay's false-negative rate from July 16 to September 17, 2020 by pooling residual heat-inactivated saliva that was unambiguously negative by RT-LAMP into groups of 6 or less and testing for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by qRT-PCR. We observed a 98.8% concordance between the RT-LAMP and qRT-PCR assays, with only 5 of 421 RT-LAMP negative pools (2,493 samples) testing positive in the more sensitive qRT-PCR assay. Overall, we demonstrate a rapid testing method that can be implemented outside the traditional laboratory setting by individuals with basic molecular biology skills and can effectively identify asymptomatic individuals who would not typically meet the criteria for symptom-based testing modalities.
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.