ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Comparative DNA extraction methods to use for LAMP assay as molecular diagnosis of human schistosomes from urine samples.
Article 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Maxwell Kit-Based and NaOH-Based DNA Extraction Incorporated copro-DNA-SjTR1-qPCR Systems: Insights from Detecting Low-Intensity Schistosoma Japonicum Infections.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2026Article
- Evaluation of six different tests for Schistosoma haematobium diagnosis in a near-elimination setting: A prospective observational diagnostic accuracy study.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2026Observational
- Comparative evaluation of Sm1-7-qPCR systems incorporated with Maxwell kit-based and NaOH-based DNA extraction methods for the detection of Schistosoma mansoni infection.Infectious diseases of poverty · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSchistosomiasis in Africa is an ongoing public health problem that is caused by two major human species, Schistosoma mansoni and S. haematobium, which often cause concurrent infections. Due to the global goal of controlling or eliminating schistosomiasis as a public health problem, the issue of diagnostic sensitivity has become more critical in the assessment of program success. In that regard, the World Health Organization (WHO) has drawn attention to the need for field-applicable tests with high specificity and sensitivity.
methodsTo address this, we have evaluated the amplification of S. mansoni and S. haematobium cell-free repeat DNA by loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) from field-collected filtered urine samples from 30 school children in Zambia. We have used four DNA extraction techniques (Qiagen and LAMP-PURE (LP): column-based DNA extraction technique, Chelex, and heating: rapid DNA extraction technique) to determine their impact on LAMP sensitivity and specificity, along with cost analysis and person-time involvement for each approach.
resultsBoth Qiagen and LP extraction detected positive infections, but Qiagen extraction is more cost-effective than LP. DNA extraction by LP is the fastest (average 20 min.) compared to the other three methods, although it is the most expensive, including amplification ($9.35 compared to $4.90 for heating extraction and amplification). Chelex extraction is slower and simpler than LP and detects 20% more positive infections than heating. Heating extraction is very fast, inexpensive, and simple to perform. However, LAMP amplification for heating-extracted samples resulted in false negatives, possibly indicating the presence of inhibitor(s).
conclusionsWe have demonstrated the sensitivity, cost-effectiveness, and time requirement of LAMP with four different DNA extraction approaches for the detection of two schistosome parasite species from a single field-collected urine sample.
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.