Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35223591›Full record

ReviewIranian journal of public health2021

The Sensitivity and Specificity of Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification and PCR Methods in Detection of Foodborne Microorganisms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Yasaman Sadeghi, Pegah Kananizadeh, Solmaz Ohadian Moghadam, Ahad Alizadeh, Mohammad Reza Pourmand, Neda Mohammadi, Davoud Afshar, Reza Ranjbar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Iranian journal of public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

8 authors.

Yasaman SadeghiDepartment of Pathobiology, Urology Research Center, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Pegah KananizadehDepartment of Pathobiology, Urology Research Center, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Solmaz Ohadian MoghadamUro-Oncology Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Ahad AlizadehHealth Products Safety Research Center, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran.
Mohammad Reza PourmandDepartment of Pathobiology, Urology Research Center, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Neda MohammadiDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Davoud AfsharDepartment of Microbiology and Virology, School of Medicine, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran.
Reza RanjbarMolecular Biology Research Center, Systems Biology and Poisonings Institute, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) method is frequently used for identifying many microorganisms. The present review aimed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of LAMP method for detection of food-borne bacteria and to compare these features with those of polymerase chain reaction (PCR), as an alternative molecular diagnostic procedure, and with cultivation method, as the gold standard method.

methodsThe literature was searched in electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE) for recruiting publications within Jan 2000 to Jul 2021. We used the combinations of keywords including foodborne disease, LAMP, PCR, Loop-mediated isothermal amplification, and polymerase chain reaction. Meta-analysis was used to adjust the correlation and heterogeneity between the studies. The efficiency of the methods was presented by negative likelihood ratio, positive likelihood ratio, sensitivity, specificity, and odds ratio using forest plots. A

resultsOverall, 23 relevant studies were analyzed. The sensitivities of LAMP and PCR methods were estimated to be 96.6% (95% CI: 95.0-97.7) and 95.6% (95%CI: 91.5-97.8), respectively. The specificities of LAMP and PCR were also estimated to be 97.6% (95%CI: 92.6-99.3) and 98.7% (95%CI: 96.5-99.5), respectively.

conclusionThe specificities of LAMP and PCR assays were determined by comparing their results with cultivation method as the gold standard. Overall, the specificity of both PCR and LAMP methods was low for detection of fastidious bacteria. Nevertheless, LAMP and PCR methods have acceptable specificities and sensitivities, and their application in clinical practice necessitates more studies.

Indexed as

Food-borne pathogenLoop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP)Polymerase chain reactionSensitivitySpecificity

Identifiers

PMID35223591
PMCPMC8826321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.