ArticleVirusdisease2024
SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP in saliva: enhancing the results via a combination of cooling and specimen dilution procedure.
Article in Virusdisease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorimetric reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) is a potential and relatively simple rapid diagnostics method for COVID-19 detection. This study aims to evaluate and optimize the RT-LAMP performance on saliva specimens based on a commercially available kit.Modifications on an established protocol (Protocol A) were used, including Proteinase K supplementation (Protocol B); pre-treatment using nuclease-free water and proteinase K (Protocol C); Saliva cooling (Protocol D); saliva dilution after pre-treatment (Protocol E); lastly a combination of saliva cooling and dilution (Protocol F). Protocol performances were evaluated by comparing success rates (SR), diagnostic accuracy (DA), sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. Additionally, a correlation between the Ct value by RT-qPCR and RT-LAMP performance was analyzed.. A total of 106 specimens were used in this study. Protocols B and C showed 100% unreadable results, therefore were paused. Protocol F showed the highest SR (87.65%) compared to other protocols, with a slight compromise to DA (81.69%), sensitivity (57.14%), specificity (97.67%), PPV (94.12%), and NPV (77.78%). In the sub-analysis of the low Ct value group (Ct < 30), Protocol F demonstrated a higher success rate (86.57%) compared to protocol A (64.18%); increased 3.08% sensitivity and 2.42% NPV; comparable DA; minor reduction in specificity (A = 100%; F = 97.67%) and PPV (A = 100%; F = 92.31%). A combination of saliva cooling-dilution substantially increased the tested kit's success rate, despite a slight decrease in specificity and PPV. Findings confirmed the saliva cooling-dilution procedure was beneficial to the test's SR, sensitivity, and NPV in the low Ct value group. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13337-024-00870-1.
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.