Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35089353›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Assessment of a Smartphone-Based Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Assay for Detection of SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza Viruses.

Douglas M Heithoff, Lucien Barnes, Scott P Mahan, Gary N Fox, Katherine E Arn, Sarah J Ettinger, Andrew M Bishop, Lynn N Fitzgibbons, Jeffrey C Fried, David A Low and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Accurate Detection ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Douglas M HeithoffDepartment of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara.
Lucien BarnesDepartment of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara.
Scott P MahanDepartment of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara.
Gary N FoxDepartment of Materials and Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara.
Katherine E ArnDepartment of Medical Education, Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, Santa Barbara, California.
Sarah J EttingerDepartment of Medical Education, Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, Santa Barbara, California.
Andrew M BishopDepartment of Medical Education, Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, Santa Barbara, California.
Lynn N FitzgibbonsDepartment of Medical Education, Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, Santa Barbara, California.
Jeffrey C FriedDepartment of Medical Education, Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, Santa Barbara, California.
David A LowDepartment of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara.
Charles E SamuelDepartment of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara.
Michael J MahanDepartment of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara.
University of California, Santa Barbara · USSanta Barbara Cottage Hospital · US

Funding

Protein Glycosylation in the Coagulopathy and Inflammation of SepsisP01HL131474 · NHLBI · SANFORD BURNHAM PREBYS MEDICAL DISCOVERY INSTITUTE · PI MARTH, JAMEY · 2016 to 2025
$26.2M
NHLBI NIH HHS P01 HL131474
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: A critical need exists in low-income and middle-income countries for low-cost, low-tech, yet highly reliable and scalable testing for SARS-CoV-2 virus that is robust against circulating variants. Objective: To assess whether a smartphone-based assay is suitable for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza virus testing without requiring specialized equipment, accessory devices, or custom reagents. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study enrolled 2 subgroups of participants (symptomatic and asymptomatic) at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital. The symptomatic group consisted of 20 recruited patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with symptoms; 30 asymptomatic patients were recruited from the same community, through negative admission screening tests for SARS-CoV-2. The smartphone-based real-time loop-mediated isothermal amplification (smaRT-LAMP) was first optimized for analysis of human saliva samples spiked with either SARS-CoV-2 or influenza A or B virus; these results then were compared with those obtained by side-by-side analysis of spiked samples using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criterion-standard reverse transcriptase-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assay. Next, both assays were used to test for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses present in blinded clinical saliva samples obtained from 50 hospitalized patients. Statistical analysis was performed from May to June 2021. Exposures: Testing for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A and B viruses. Main Outcomes and Measures: SARS-CoV-2 and influenza infection status and quantitative viral load were determined. Results: Among the 50 eligible participants with no prior SARS-CoV-2 infection included in the study, 29 were men. The mean age was 57 years (range, 21 to 93 years). SmaRT-LAMP exhibited 100% concordance (50 of 50 patient samples) with the CDC criterion-standard diagnostic for SARS-CoV-2 sensitivity (20 of 20 positive and 30 of 30 negative) and for quantitative detection of viral load. This platform also met the CDC criterion standard for detection of clinically similar influenza A and B viruses in spiked saliva samples (n = 20), and in saliva samples from hospitalized patients (50 of 50 negative). The smartphone-based LAMP assay was rapid (25 minutes), sensitive (1000 copies/mL), low-cost (<$7/test), and scalable (96 samples/phone). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of saliva samples from patients, the smartphone-based LAMP assay detected SARS-CoV-2 infection and exhibited concordance with RT-qPCR tests. These findings suggest that this tool could be adapted in response to novel CoV-2 variants and other pathogens with pandemic potential including influenza and may be useful in settings with limited resources.

Indexed as

COVID-19Molecular Diagnostic TechniquesNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesSmartphoneAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOrthomyxoviridaeSARS-CoV-2United StatesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID35089353
PMCPMC8800074
OpenAlexW4210525812

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.