Table 1 Articles comparing LAMP methods with RT-PCR for COVID-19 detection available at the time this study
Preprint | Country | Methods | Samples used for validation | Sensitivity of LAMP (for ORF1ab gene) compared with RT-PCR | Specificity of LAMP (for ORF1ab gene) compared with RT-PCR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
El-Tholeth et al. [2] | USA | Two stage isothermal amplification (COVID-19 Penn-RAMP) targeting ORF1ab | No SARS-CoV-2 samples available in USA at time of study so samples with inactivated HIV virus with synthesised LAMP sequences tested. Four positive samples used. | 75% | 100% |
Lamb et al. [3] | USA | LAMP using unspecified primers | No SARS-CoV-2 samples; synthesised LAMP sequences tested. | Study was not powered to determine sensitivity in a clinical population | N/a |
Zhang et al. [4] | China | LAMP using ORF1ab, and N gene primers | 6 positive swabs by RT-PCR | 100% | N/a |
Yu et al. [5] | China | LAMP using ORF1ab gene primers | 43 positive swabs by RT-PCR | 97.6% | N/a |
Yang et al. [6] | China | LAMP using ORF1ab, E and N gene primers | 208 swabs (17 positive & 191 negative by RT-PCR) | 87.5% (confidence intervals not available) | 99% (confidence intervals not available) |
Yan et al. [7] | China | LAMP using ORF1ab, S-123 gene primers | 130 specimens (both swabs and BAL specimens) – 58 positive, 72 negative | 100% | 100% |