Skip to main content

Table 1 Articles comparing LAMP methods with RT-PCR for COVID-19 detection available at the time this study

From: Detecting SARS-CoV-2 at point of care: preliminary data comparing loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) to polymerase chain reaction (PCR)

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)
(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%
  1. BAL Broncho-alveolar lavage, USA United States of America, HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus