ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2021
Pooled analysis of LAMP assay for the diagnosis of norovirus infection.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled analysis of LAMP assay for the diagnosis of norovirus infection.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid laboratory detection is essential to diagnose norovirus infection. LAMP has many advantages compared with RT-PCR for detecting norovirus, including high sensitivity, high specificity, rapidity, low cost, and intuitive results, which can be easily read with the naked eye with the help of color-based reporters. In this study, we intend to analyze the accuracy of LAMP methods for the diagnosis of norovirus infection.
methodsTwo researchers independently retrieved relevant literature up to January 2021 (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, Wan Fang, and VIP). The researchers screened all articles and extracted their research data for meta-analysis. QUADAS-2 tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies by Review Manager 5.3. Forest plots were performed by Meta-DiSc 1.4 to evaluate the accuracy of the test. Deeks' funnel plot symmetry tests were conducted by Stata 15.0 to check the potential publication bias.
resultsEleven sets of data extracted from the eight included studies were included for meta-analysis. For the detection of norovirus, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive LR, negative LR, diagnostic OR, and their 95% CI were 0.96 (0.95-0.97), 0.99 (0.99-1.00), 91.14 (31.88-260.56), 0.06 (0.04-0.09), and 1473.68 (562.96-3857.70), respectively. Besides, AUC in the SROC curve was 0.9920.
conclusionLAMP had high sensitivity and specificity in terms of the diagnosis of norovirus infection. However, further extension of this approach should be researched to ensure the accuracy and practicability of this hopeful test in the future.
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.