Cited by 132Malaria Research and ControlBiosensors and Analytical DetectionSARS-CoV-2 detection and testing

Loop-Mediated Isothermal PCR (LAMP) for the Diagnosis of Falciparum Malaria

Paris, Daniel H., Imwong, Mallika, Faiz, Abul M., Hasan, Mahtabuddin, Yunus, Emran Bin, Silamut, Kamolrat, Lee, Sue J., Day, Nicholas P. J. +1 more·2007·The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene

Abstract

A recently described loop-mediated isothermal polymerase chain reaction (LAMP) for molecular detection of Plasmodium falciparum was compared with microscopy, PfHRP2-based rapid diagnostic test (RDT), and nested polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as the “gold standard” in 115 Bangladeshi in-patients with fever. DNA extraction for LAMP was conducted by conventional methods or simple heating of the sample; test results were either assessed visually or by gel electrophoresis. Conventional DNA extraction followed by gel electrophoresis had the highest agreement with the reference method (81.7%, κ = 0.64), with a sensitivity (95% CI) of 76.1% (68.3–83.9%), comparable to RDT and microscopy, but a specificity of 89.6% (84.0–95.2%) compared with 100% for RDT and microscopy. DNA extraction by heat treatment deteriorated specificity to unacceptable levels. LAMP enables molecular diagnosis of falciparum malaria in settings with limited technical resources but will need further optimization. The results are in contrast with a higher accuracy reported in an earlier study comparing LAMP with a non-validated PCR method.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4269/ajtmh.2007.77.972

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several studies reported high sensitivity and specificity of LAMP compared with microscopy or PCR in nonpregnant populations.

    “Several studies that compared the LAMP method to microscopy, PCR and RDT, reported high sensitivity and specificity compared with microscopy or PCR in nonpregnant populations [34–37].”

    From Diagnosing malaria in pregnancy: An update (2012) · cites this paper as [35]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Paris, D. H., Imwong, M., Faiz, A. M., Hasan, M., Yunus, E. B., Silamut, K., Lee, S. J., Day, N. P. J., & Dondorp, A. M.
Affiliations
Mahidol University (TH)
Corresponding author
Paris, Daniel H.
Venue
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
Published
2007-11
Volume
77
Issue
5
Pages
972-976
ISSN
0002-9637 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1888003576
Cited by
132
References
19
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 12
FWCI
5.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Malaria Research and Control
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Biosensors and Analytical Detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
Keywords
falciparum malaria, molecular diagnosis, microscopic diagnosis, nested PCR, diagnostic accuracy, DNA extraction, resource-limited settings
MeSH terms
Bangladesh, Humans, Microscopy, Sensitivity and Specificity, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Malaria, Falciparum

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review