ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2023
Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification of DNA (LAMP) as an Alternative Method for Determining Bacteria in Wound Infections.
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a recombinase-aided amplification assay for rapid and sensitive detection ofExperimental and therapeutic medicine · 2026Article
- Improving Microbiological Monitoring of Hospital Surfaces: Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (LAMP) as a New Approach for Rapid Nosocomial Pathogens Detection.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Rapid Detection ofBiosensors · 2025Article
- Specific gFET-Based Aptasensors for Monitoring of Microbiome Quality: Quantification of the Enteric Health-Relevant Bacterium Roseburia Intestinalis.Advanced healthcare materials · 2025Article
- Rapid molecular detection ofFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Advances in the detection technology of vegetable soil borne fungi and bacteria.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The increasing number of patients with chronic wounds requires the development of quick and accurate diagnostics methods. One of the key and challenging aspects of treating ulcers is to control wound infection. Early detection of infection is essential for the application of suitable treatment methods, such as systemic antibiotics or other antimicrobial agents. Clinically, the most frequently used method for detecting microorganisms in wounds is through a swab and culture on appropriate media. This test has major limitations, such as the long bacterial growth time and the selectivity of bacterial growth. This article presents an overview of molecular methods for detecting bacteria in wounds, including real-time polymerase chain reaction (rtPCR), quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), genotyping, next-generation sequencing (NGS), and loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP). We focus on the LAMP method, which has not yet been widely used to detect bacteria in wounds, but it is an interesting alternative to conventional detection methods. LAMP does not require additional complicated equipment and provides the fastest detection time for microorganisms (approx. 30 min reaction). It also allows the use of many pairs of primers in one reaction and determination of up to 15 organisms in one sample. Isothermal amplification of DNA is currently the easiest and most economical method for microbial detection in wound infection. Direct visualization of the reaction with dyes, along with omitting DNA isolation, has increased the potential use of this method.
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.