Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34795308›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2021

Comparative analysis of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP)-based assays for rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 genes.

Daniel Urrutia-Cabrera, Roxanne Hsiang-Chi Liou, Jiang-Hui Wang, Jianxiong Chan, Sandy Shen-Chi Hung, Alex W Hewitt, Keith R Martin, Thomas L Edwards, Patrick Kwan, Raymond Ching-Bong Wong

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Comparative evaluation of 14Frontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Standardization and performance of SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP detection: a reliable, inexpensive, and alternative diagnostic assay.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel Urrutia-Cabrera *Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Roxanne Hsiang-Chi Liou *Centre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Jiang-Hui WangCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Jianxiong ChanDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Sandy Shen-Chi HungCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Alex W HewittCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Keith R MartinCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Thomas L EdwardsCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
Patrick KwanDepartment of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Raymond Ching-Bong WongCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. wongcb@unimelb.edu.au.
Centre for Eye Research Australia · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has infected millions worldwide, therefore there is an urgent need to increase our diagnostic capacity to identify infected cases. Although RT-qPCR remains the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 detection, this method requires specialised equipment in a diagnostic laboratory and has a long turn-around time to process the samples. To address this, several groups have recently reported the development of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) as a simple, low cost and rapid method for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Herein we present a comparative analysis of three LAMP-based assays that target different regions of the SARS-CoV-2: ORF1ab RdRP, ORF1ab nsp3 and Gene N. We perform a detailed assessment of their sensitivity, kinetics and false positive rates for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics in LAMP or RT-LAMP reactions, using colorimetric or fluorescent detection. Our results independently validate that all three assays can detect SARS-CoV-2 in 30 min, with robust accuracy at detecting as little as 1000 RNA copies and the results can be visualised simply by color changes. Incorporation of RT-LAMP with fluorescent detection further increases the detection sensitivity to as little as 100 RNA copies. We also note the shortcomings of some LAMP-based assays, including variable results with shorter reaction time or lower load of SARS-CoV-2, and false positive results in some experimental conditions and clinical saliva samples. Overall for RT-LAMP detection, the ORF1ab RdRP and ORF1ab nsp3 assays have faster kinetics for detection but varying degrees of false positives detection, whereas the Gene N assay exhibits no false positives in 30 min reaction time, which highlights the importance of optimal primer design to minimise false-positives in RT-LAMP. This study provides validation of the performance of LAMP-based assays as a rapid, highly sensitive detection method for SARS-CoV-2, which have important implications in development of point-of-care diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 Nucleic Acid TestingMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesAdultFemaleHumansMaleSalivaSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID34795308
PMCPMC8602269
OpenAlexW3214593126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.