ArticleCureus2026
Clinical Performance of the Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Method Compared With Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction for COVID-19 Diagnosis in Indonesia and the Philippines.
Article in Cureus, 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
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, this method is expensive, time-consuming, and requires skilled personnel. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP), a simpler test method. A multinational prospective clinical performance study was conducted in Indonesia and the Philippines, comparing the LAMP method to RT-PCR for the diagnosis of COVID-19. In total, 256 subjects with COVID-19 symptoms underwent RT-PCR testing, of whom 130 and 126 were positive and negative, respectively. In Indonesia (n = 180), 115 (63.9%) tested positive by RT-PCR and 65 (36.1%) tested negative; in the Philippines (n = 76), 15 subjects (19.7%) tested positive by RT-PCR and 61 (80.3%) tested negative. The LAMP and RT-PCR results were concordant in 243/256 subjects (94.9%; 95% confidence interval, 91.5-97.3) (92.8% in Indonesia, 100% in the Philippines). Among 130 RT-PCR-positive subjects, 117 were also positive by LAMP, yielding a sensitivity of 90%. Of the 126 RT-PCR-negative subjects, 126 were also negative by LAMP, yielding a specificity of 100%. The positive and negative predictive values were 100% and 90.6%, respectively. Our study demonstrated high overall accuracy between the LAMP and RT-PCR methods, suggesting the potential utility of the LAMP method for detecting COVID-19 and highlighting its usefulness in managing cases.
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.