ArticleTropical medicine and infectious disease2023
Laboratory Evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP Test.
Article in Tropical medicine and infectious disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- An alternative real-time fluorescence reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for the rapid detection of SARS-CoV-2.Revista do Instituto de Medicina Tropical de Sao Paulo · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
There is a need to have more accessible molecular diagnostic tests for the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 disease in low- and middle-income countries. Reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) may provide an attractive option as this technology does not require a complex infrastructure. In this study, the diagnostic performance of a SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP was evaluated using RT-PCR-confirmed clinical specimens of COVID-19-positive (n = 55) and -negative patients (n = 55) from the Netherlands. The observed sensitivity of the RT-LAMP test was 97.2% (95% CI: 82.4-98.0%) and the specificity was 100% (95% CI: 93.5-100%). The positive predictive value of the RT-LAMP was 100%, the negative predictive value 93.2% (95% CI: 84.3-97.3%), and the diagnostic accuracy was 96.4% (95% CI: 91.0-99.0%). The agreement between the RT-LAMP and the RT-PCR was "almost perfect" (κ-value: 0.92). The evaluated RT-LAMP might provide an attractive alternative molecular diagnostic tool for SARS-CoV-2 in resource limited settings.
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.