ABSTRACT
Background Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused a severe outbreak and become a global public health priority. Rapid increment of infection number along with significant deaths have placed the virus as a serious threat to human health. Rapid, reliable, and simple diagnostic methods are critically essential for disease control. While Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) is the current diagnostic gold standard, Reverse Transcriptase Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (RT-LAMP) appears as a compelling alternative diagnostic test due to its more simplicity, shorter time to result, and lower cost. This study examined RT-LAMP application for rapid identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to RT-PCR assay.
Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis (2020) was conducted in 6 scientific databases following the PRISMA Guideline. Original published studies on human clinical samples in English were included. Articles evaluated sensitivity and specificity of RT-LAMP relative to RT-PCR were considered eligible. Quality assessment of bias and applicability was examined based on QUADAS-2.
Results A total of 351 studies were found based on the keywords and search queries. 14 eligible case control studies fitted the respective criteria. Quality assessment using QUADAS-2 indicated low risk bias in all included studies. All case studies, comprises 2,112 samples, had the cumulative sensitivity of 95.5% (CI 97.5%=90.8-97.9%) and cumulative specificity of 99.5% (CI 97.5%=97.7-99.9%).
Conclusion RT-LAMP assay could be suggested as a reliable alternative COVID-19 diagnostic method with reduced cost and time compared to RT-PCR. RT-LAMP could potentially be utilized during the high-throughput and high-demand critical situations.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests and no funding is used in this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This article does not need the IRB approval as it uses publicly available data
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data is available in the manuscript
