ArticleMalaria journal2023
Head-to-head comparison of two loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) kits for diagnosis of malaria in a non-endemic setting.
Article in Malaria journal, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanistic insights into subclinicaliScience · 2026Review
- A comparison of the cost-effectiveness of the current standard of care and of the haematology analyser XN31-microscopy combination for diagnosing malaria in a nonendemic country.Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLight microscopy and rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) have long been the recommended diagnostic methods for malaria. However, in recent years, loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) techniques have been shown to offer superior performance, in particular concerning low-grade parasitaemia, by delivering higher sensitivity and specificity with low laboratory capacity requirements in little more than an hour. In this study, the diagnostic performance of two LAMP kits were assessed head-to-head, compared to highly sensitive quantitative real time PCR (qPCR), in a non-endemic setting.
methodsIn this retrospective validation study two LAMP kits; Alethia
resultsOf the 133 samples tested, qPCR detected Plasmodium DNA in 41 samples (defined as true positives), and the two LAMP methods detected 41 and 37 of those, respectively. The results from the HumaTurb Loopamp™ Malaria PDT kit were in complete congruence with the qPCR, with a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 91.40-100%) and specificity of 100% (95% CI 96.07-100%). The Alethia
conclusionsThis head-to-head comparison showed higher performance indicators of the HumaTurb Loopamp™ Malaria PDT kit compared to the Alethia
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.