ArticleViruses2025
Evaluation of RT-LAMP for SARS-CoV-2 Detection in Animal Feces.
Article in Viruses, 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.
- Approaching Gold-Standard Sensitivity in a Portable and Versatile Gold Nanoprisms Thermoplasmonic Platform for Lateral Flow Detection of Biomolecules.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2026Article
- Development of a Closed One-Tube Colorimetric and Fluorescent LAMP Assay for the Rapid Detection of Feline Herpesvirus 1.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The wide host range, potential lethality, and zoonotic potential of SARS-CoV-2 infection in animals highlights the need for additional surveillance strategies. We validated a commercial, pH-based, colorimetric RT-LAMP assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in animal feces. The comparator assay was rRT-PCR. The limit of detection of the RT-LAMP assay was 72 genome copies per reaction. RT-LAMP was highly specific for SARS-CoV-2 and did not detect other human or animal coronaviruses. RT-LAMP was robust, with valid results generated for incubation lengths of 30 to 45 min, incubation temperatures of 60 to 70 °C, and reaction volumes of 10 to 25 µL. The diagnostic sensitivity was 100% for clinical fecal samples with high viral loads (Ct ≤ 25), 97.4% for samples with moderate to high viral loads (Ct ≤ 33), and 62% overall (Ct ≤ 40). The diagnostic specificity was 97.9%. Blinded method testing organized by an independent laboratory confirmed the satisfactory reproducibility of the assay. To our knowledge, this study represents the first validation of RT-LAMP for SARS-CoV-2 detection in animals. RT-LAMP testing could detect SARS-CoV-2 infection more rapidly and at the point of care in animals with moderate to high viral loads, allowing for earlier implementation of control measures.
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.