ArticleCornea2026
Diagnostic Accuracy of Clinic-Based Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification and Quantitative PCR for Fungal and Acanthamoeba Keratitis.
Article in Cornea, 2026. 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) for fungal and acanthamoeba keratitis when performed on simple clinic-based platforms.
methodsA total of 177 corneal scrapings were collected from 174 patients ≥18 years old diagnosed with presumed infectious keratitis at Vietnam National Eye Hospital. Smear was performed per routine by the microbiology laboratory. Clinic-based LAMP and qPCR testing for acanthamoeba and fungal targets was performed by a trained technician. The diagnostic accuracy of acanthamoeba LAMP, acanthamoeba qPCR, and panfungal qPCR was assessed relative to smear.
resultsOf 177 cornea swabs tested with LAMP and qPCR for acanthamoeba, 5 were smear-positive for acanthamoeba. Sensitivity was 40% (95% CI, 12%-77%) for acanthamoeba LAMP and 100% (95% CI, 57%-100%) for acanthamoeba qPCR, and specificities were 100% (95% CI, 98%-100%) and 99% (95% CI, 96%-100%), respectively. Of 177 swabs tested with panfungal qPCR, 61 had a smear positive for fungus. Panfungal qPCR had a sensitivity of 84% (95% CI, 73%-91%) and specificity of 72% (95% CI, 64%-80%).
conclusionsA clinic-based qPCR was highly sensitive and specific for diagnosis of acanthamoeba keratitis but had poorer diagnostic performance for fungal keratitis. The LAMP protocol used in this study requires optimizations to improve sensitivity and reliability.
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.