Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification method (LAMP) compared with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for Leptospira spp. in clinical samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) test is widely used in molecular diagnostics as a point-of-care technique alternative to traditional PCR especially in resource-limited countries. LAMP has been recently used to diagnose leptospirosis. Therefore, we undertook a systematic review and meta...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Gunasegar, Shan, Neela, Vasantha Kumari
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Elsevier 2021
Online Access:http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/97153/1/ABSTRACT.pdf
http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/97153/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732889321000626
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id my.upm.eprints.97153
record_format eprints
spelling my.upm.eprints.971532022-09-14T01:28:14Z http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/97153/ Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification method (LAMP) compared with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for Leptospira spp. in clinical samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis Gunasegar, Shan Neela, Vasantha Kumari Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) test is widely used in molecular diagnostics as a point-of-care technique alternative to traditional PCR especially in resource-limited countries. LAMP has been recently used to diagnose leptospirosis. Therefore, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the accuracy of LAMP with PCR in the diagnosis of leptospirosis. Sixty-one studies were extracted from three international databases and analyzed throughout using the PRISMA guideline. The pooled sensitivity of LAMP and PCR technique was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.58–0.90) and 0.54 (95% CI: 0.35–0.67) respectively indicating that LAMP is more sensitive than PCR. The Q* value of LAMP and PCR-based technique is 274.61 and 397.95, respectively. Among the analyzed studies, significant heterogeneity was observed where I2 is 90.90% for LAMP-based and 86.18% for PCR-based. Our study suggests that LAMP has better diagnostic accuracy than PCR. However, future work should be carried out to reduce heterogeneity as well as to improve and develop effective intervention strategies. Elsevier 2021 Article PeerReviewed text en http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/97153/1/ABSTRACT.pdf Gunasegar, Shan and Neela, Vasantha Kumari (2021) Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification method (LAMP) compared with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for Leptospira spp. in clinical samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease, 100 (3). art. no. 115369. pp. 1-11. ISSN 0732-8893 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732889321000626 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2021.115369
institution Universiti Putra Malaysia
building UPM Library
collection Institutional Repository
continent Asia
country Malaysia
content_provider Universiti Putra Malaysia
content_source UPM Institutional Repository
url_provider http://psasir.upm.edu.my/
language English
description Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) test is widely used in molecular diagnostics as a point-of-care technique alternative to traditional PCR especially in resource-limited countries. LAMP has been recently used to diagnose leptospirosis. Therefore, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the accuracy of LAMP with PCR in the diagnosis of leptospirosis. Sixty-one studies were extracted from three international databases and analyzed throughout using the PRISMA guideline. The pooled sensitivity of LAMP and PCR technique was 0.80 (95% CI: 0.58–0.90) and 0.54 (95% CI: 0.35–0.67) respectively indicating that LAMP is more sensitive than PCR. The Q* value of LAMP and PCR-based technique is 274.61 and 397.95, respectively. Among the analyzed studies, significant heterogeneity was observed where I2 is 90.90% for LAMP-based and 86.18% for PCR-based. Our study suggests that LAMP has better diagnostic accuracy than PCR. However, future work should be carried out to reduce heterogeneity as well as to improve and develop effective intervention strategies.
format Article
author Gunasegar, Shan
Neela, Vasantha Kumari
spellingShingle Gunasegar, Shan
Neela, Vasantha Kumari
Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification method (LAMP) compared with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for Leptospira spp. in clinical samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis
author_facet Gunasegar, Shan
Neela, Vasantha Kumari
author_sort Gunasegar, Shan
title Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification method (LAMP) compared with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for Leptospira spp. in clinical samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification method (LAMP) compared with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for Leptospira spp. in clinical samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification method (LAMP) compared with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for Leptospira spp. in clinical samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification method (LAMP) compared with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for Leptospira spp. in clinical samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification method (LAMP) compared with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for Leptospira spp. in clinical samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort evaluation of diagnostic accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification method (lamp) compared with polymerase chain reaction (pcr) for leptospira spp. in clinical samples: a systematic review and meta-analysis
publisher Elsevier
publishDate 2021
url http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/97153/1/ABSTRACT.pdf
http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/97153/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732889321000626
_version_ 1744355307571642368
score 13.2014675