ArticlePloS one2025
Validation of new equipment for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in Ecuador: Detection of the virus and antibodies generated by disease and vaccines with one POC device.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- International multisite implementation of distributed cell-free protein biomanufacturing to advance health and research equity.Science advances · 2026Article
- A Field-Deployable RotEx-LAMP-LFA Platform for Molecular Triage of HPV-Driven Oncogenesis.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the critical need to enhance screening capabilities and streamline diagnosis. Point-of-care (POC) tests offer a promising solution by decentralizing testing. We aimed to validate the PLUM device (LSK Technologies Inc.), a portable optical reader, to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA using direct RT-LAMP targeting the ORF1a and E1 genes and patient antibodies by ELISA. The direct RT-LAMP assays employ nasopharyngeal swabs and bypass RNA extraction protocols through a brief chemical and physical lysis step. Test sensitivity and specificity were assessed against gold-standard detection methods in laboratory and field conditions. For samples with Ct values below 25, direct RT-LAMP showed 83% sensitivity and 90% specificity under laboratory conditions and 91% sensitivity and 92% specificity under field conditions. The nucleocapsid antigen antibody assay had 99% positive percent agreement (PPA) and 97% negative percent agreement (NPA), outperforming spike-RBD antigen (98% PPA, 92% NPA) and seroprevalence (98% PPA, 88% NPA) under laboratory conditions. Under field conditions, similar results were found for antibody detection for the nucleocapsid antigen (93% PPA; 100% NPA), spike-RBD (100% PPA; 94% NPA), and seroprevalence (90% PPA; 94% NPA). This study validated the PLUM device as a dual POC tool for direct RT-LAMP-based SARS-CoV-2 and ELISA-based COVID-19 antibody detection.
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.