ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Self-Sampled Gargle Water Direct RT-LAMP as a Screening Method for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infections.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sensitivity of gargle samples compared to swabs for SARS-CoV-2 detection with nucleic acid amplification testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Virology journal · 2026Pooled it
- A fully integrated duplex RT-LAMP device for the detection of viral infections.Biomedical microdevices · 2023Article
- Recent advances in RNA sample preparation techniques for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in saliva and gargle.Trends in analytical chemistry : TRAC · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
We assessed the viability of self-sampled gargle water direct RT-LAMP (LAMP) for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infections by estimating its sensitivity with respect to the gold standard indirect RT-PCR of paired oro-nasopharyngeal swab samples. We also assessed the impact of symptom onset to test time (STT)-i.e., symptom days at sampling, on LAMP. In addition, we appraised the viability of gargle water self-sampling versus oro-nasopharyngeal swab sampling, by comparing paired indirect RT-PCR results. 202 oro-nasopharyngeal swab and paired self-sampled gargle water samples were collected from hospital patients with COVID-19 associated symptoms. LAMP, indirect and direct RT-PCR were performed on all gargle water samples, and indirect RT-PCR was performed on all oro-nasopharyngeal samples. LAMP presented a sensitivity of 80.8% (95% CI: 70.8-90.8%) for sample pairs with sub-25 Ct oro-nasopharyngeal indirect RT-PCR results, and 77.6% (66.2-89.1%) sensitivity for sub-30 Ct samples with STT ≤ 7 days. STT, independently of Ct value, correlated negatively with LAMP performance. 80.7% agreement was observed between gargle water and oro-nasopharyngeal indirect RT-PCR results. In conclusion, LAMP presents an acceptable sensitivity for low Ct and low STT samples. Gargle water may be considered as a viable sampling method, and LAMP as a screening method, especially for symptomatic persons with low STT values.
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.