ArticleJournal of clinical virology plus2022
Evaluation of a novel direct RT-LAMP assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 from saliva samples in asymptomatic individuals.
Article in Journal of clinical virology plus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laboratory-based molecular test alternatives to RT-PCR for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Cross comparison of alternative diagnostic protocols including substitution to the clinical sample, RNA extraction method and nucleic acid amplification technology for COVID-19 diagnosis.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2024Article
- Reverse transcription loop‑mediated isothermal amplification has a high performance in the detection of SARS‑CoV‑2 in saliva samples and nasal swabs from asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2023Article
- Evaluation of theJournal of clinical virology plus · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large scale screening of health care workers and the general population for asymptomatic COVID-19 infection requires modalities that are amenable to testing at scale while retaining acceptable levels of sensitivity and specificity. This study evaluated a novel COVID-19 Direct-RT LAMP assay using saliva samples in asymptomatic individuals by comparison to RT-PCR. Additional studies were performed using VTM collected from routine diagnostic testing. Analytical sensitivity was determined for Direct RT-LAMP assay using the WHO International Standard. Finally, quantified results from RT-PCR testing of 9177 nose and throat swabs obtained from routine diagnostic testing were used to estimate the sensitivity of Direct RT-LAMP using the limit of detection curve obtained from the analytical sensitivity data. Results from saliva testing demonstrated a sensitivity of 40.91% and a specificity of 100% for Direct RT-LAMP. The sensitivity and specificity for nose and throat swabs were 44.85% and 100% respectively. The 95% limit of detection (LOD) for Direct RT-LAMP was log 7.13 IU/ml (95% 6.9-7.5). The estimated sensitivity for Direct-RT LAMP based on the results of 9117 nose and throat swabs was 34% and 45% for saliva and VTM respectively. The overall diagnostic sensitivity of Direct RT-LAMP was low compared to RT-PCR. Testing of nose and throat swabs and estimating the sensitivity based on a large cohort of clinical samples demonstrated similar results. This study highlights the importance of utilising the prospective collection of samples from the intended target population in the assessment of diagnostic sensitivity.
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.