ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2022
A diagnostic accuracy study comparing RNA LAMP, direct LAMP, and rapid antigen testing from nasopharyngeal swabs.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- SIMPLE: A One-Pot RPA-Cas12b Method for Single Nucleotide Variations Identification with an Expanded Scope and Clinical Applications.Phenomics (Cham, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of three rapid assays for detecting Mycoplasma pneumoniae in nasopharyngeal specimens.AMB Express · 2024Article
- Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification for Diagnosis of Zoonotic Malaria.The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene · 2024Article
- Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of the Pluslife Mini Dock RHAM technology with Abbott ID Now and Cepheid GenXpert: A retrospective evaluation study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Laboratory Evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 RT-LAMP Test.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the early detection and isolation of individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus disease 2 (SARS-CoV-2) through mass testing can effectively prevent disease transmission. SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid rapid detection based on loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) may be appropriate to include in testing procedures. Methods: We used 860 nasopharyngeal specimens from healthcare workers of Huashan Hospital and COVID-19 patients collected from April 7th to 21st, 2022, to assess the clinical diagnostic performance of the LAMP assay marketed by Shanghai GeneSc Biotech and compared it to the result of a rapid antigen test (RAT) head-to-head. Results: Overall, the diagnostic performance of LAMP assay and RAT were as follows. The LAMP assay represented higher sensitivity and specificity than RAT, especially in the extracted RNA samples. The sensitivity was 70.92% and 92.91% for direct LAMP and RNA-LAMP assay, respectively, while the specificity was 99.86% and 98.33%. The LAMP assay had overall better diagnostic performance on the specimens with relatively lower Conclusion: The LAMP assay are suitable for mass screenings of SARS-CoV-2 infections in the general population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.