Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35884295›Full record

ReviewBiosensors2022

Progression of LAMP as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Is PCR Finally Rivaled?

Cassidy Mannier, Jeong-Yeol Yoon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biosensors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

2 authors.

Cassidy MannierDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, the University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
Jeong-Yeol YoonDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, the University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9720-6472

Funding

Technology and Research Initiative Fund (TRIF) of the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) N/AUniversity of Arizona Test All Test Smart Program N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reflecting on the past three years and the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic, varying global tactics offer insights into the most effective public-health responses. In the US, specifically, rapid and widespread testing was quickly prioritized to lower restrictions sooner. Essentially, only two types of COVID-19 diagnostic tests were publicly employed during the peak pandemic: the rapid antigen test and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). However, neither test ideally suited the situation, as rapid antigen tests are far too inaccurate, and RT-PCR tests require skilled personnel and sophisticated equipment, leading to long wait times. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) is another exceptionally accurate nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) that offers far quicker time to results. However, RT-LAMP COVID-19 tests have not been embraced as extensively as rapid antigen tests or RT-PCR. This review will investigate the performance of current RT-LAMP-based COVID-19 tests and summarize the reasons behind the hesitancy to embrace RT-LAMP instead of RT-PCR. We will also look at other LAMP platforms to explore possible improvements in the accuracy and portability of LAMP, which could be applied to COVID-19 diagnostics and future public-health outbreaks.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsClinical Laboratory TechniquesCOVID-19 TestingHumansMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesPolymerase Chain ReactionSARS-CoV-2Sensitivity and Specificityloop-mediated isothermal amplificationnucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)rapid antigen testRT-LAMPRT-PCRSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID35884295
PMCPMC9312731

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.