SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2025
A novel pan-Leishmania loop-mediated isothermal amplification (Loopamp) assay for diagnosis of cutaneous and visceral leishmaniasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundThere is an urgent need for accurate and robust point-of-care (PoC) assays for visceral and cutaneous leishmaniasis (VL and CL). The Loopamp™ Leishmania detection kit (Loopamp), a novel loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay, has shown promise for VL and CL diagnosis using Qiagen and simpler boil-and-spin (B&S) DNA extraction methods. But diagnostic performances were inconsistent across studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of Loopamp for CL and VL diagnosis.
methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify studies that evaluated the diagnostic performance of Loopamp for VL and CL suspects. Using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2), the methodological qualities of the included studies were evaluated. A bivariate random-effects meta-analysis was performed using R and Stata 14.2.
resultsTen studies comprising 18 datasets were included. Sensitivity among individual VL studies ranged from 92 to 100%, while specificity varied from 41 to 100%. For CL, sensitivity varied from 48 to 100% and specificity from 31 to 100%. Pooled sensitivity was 96% (95% CI, 94-98%) for VL and 93% (95% CI, 70-99%) for CL. Pooled specificity was 99% (95% CI, 94-100%) for VL and 87% (95% CI, 55-97%) for CL. Subgroup analysis revealed that whole-blood B&S-Loopamp for VL had similar sensitivity (96%, 95% CI: 93-98%) and specificity (99%, 95% CI: 89-100%) to Qiagen-Loopamp.
conclusionsLoopamp demonstrated robust diagnostic performance for VL in whole blood, meeting the 95% sensitivity and 99% specificity criteria outlined in the Target Product Profile (TPP). Similar to Loopamp-Qiagen, Loopamp-B&S performed excellently for VL diagnosis and is feasible to deploy in remote endemic areas. Loopamp showed high sensitivity and good specificity for CL diagnosis but fell short of the 95% sensitivity and 90% specificity required for CL PoC tests. Data on CL are limited, and its effectiveness in New World VL patients is unclear. Future research is needed to address this gap.
trial registrationCRD42023489463.
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.