The Sensitivity and Specificity of Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification and PCR Methods in Detection of Foodborne Mi-croorganisms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) method is frequently used for identifying many microorganisms. The present review aimed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of LAMP method for detection of food-borne bacteria and to compare these features with those of polymerase...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Iranian journal of public health 2021-11
Hauptverfasser: Sadeghi, Yasaman, Kananizadeh, Pegah, Ohadian Moghadam, Solmaz, Alizadeh, Ahad, Pourmand, Mohammad Reza, Mohammadi, Neda, Afshar, Davoud, Ranjbar, Reza
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title Iranian journal of public health
container_volume
creator Sadeghi, Yasaman
Kananizadeh, Pegah
Ohadian Moghadam, Solmaz
Alizadeh, Ahad
Pourmand, Mohammad Reza
Mohammadi, Neda
Afshar, Davoud
Ranjbar, Reza
description Background: The loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) method is frequently used for identifying many microorganisms. The present review aimed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of LAMP method for detection of food-borne bacteria and to compare these features with those of polymerase chain reaction (PCR), as an alternative molecular diagnostic procedure, and with cultivation method, as the gold standard method. Methods: The literature was searched in electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE) for recruiting publications within Jan 2000 to Jul 2021. We used the combinations of keywords including foodborne disease, LAMP, PCR, Loop-mediated isothermal amplification, and polymerase chain reaction. Meta-analysis was used to adjust the correlation and heterogeneity between the studies. The efficiency of the methods was presented by negative likelihood ratio, positive likelihood ratio, sensitivity, specificity, and odds ratio using forest plots. A P-value less than 0.05 was considered as statistical significance cut off. The confidence intervals were presented at the 95% interval. Results: Overall, 23 relevant studies were analyzed. The sensitivities of LAMP and PCR methods were estimated to be 96.6% (95% CI: 95.0-97.7) and 95.6% (95%CI: 91.5-97.8), respectively. The specificities of LAMP and PCR were also estimated to be 97.6% (95%CI: 92.6-99.3) and 98.7% (95%CI: 96.5-99.5), respectively. Conclusion: The specificities of LAMP and PCR assays were determined by comparing their results with cultivation method as the gold standard. Overall, the specificity of both PCR and LAMP methods was low for detection of fastidious bacteria. Nevertheless, LAMP and PCR methods have acceptable specificities and sensitivities, and their application in clinical practice necessitates more studies.
doi_str_mv 10.18502/ijph.v50i11.7571
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>crossref</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_18502_ijph_v50i11_7571</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_18502_ijph_v50i11_7571</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c288t-115252dc18a174ef7879ca19e2c6d99a8445bdd72e7f26c2d4d9b4e6cc63320e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kE1OwzAQRi0EEqVwAHa-QIrtxHHCLip_lVqB2rKOXHtCXCVxFFtFuRKnJEkRq5nRN_M0egjdU7KgCSfswRzbcnHixFC6EFzQCzRjjNMgJml4-d8n_BrdOHckJIoZFzP0sy8B76BxxpuT8T2Wjca7FpQpjBpnW-C1tW2wAW2kB41XzvoSulpWOKvbatyT3thmuvxYbvEGfGm1w6bBT-BBTeGAebFWH2zXAN6YQHXWdl-yMa52jzjDu955qAeQwls4GfiecANKBlkjq94Zd4uuClk5uPurc_T58rxfvgXr99fVMlsHiiWJDyjljDOtaCKpiKAQiUiVpCkwFes0lUkU8YPWgoEoWKyYjnR6iCBWKg5DRiCcI3rmDj8610GRt52pZdfnlOST7HyUnZ9l56Ps8BeKAXeO</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Sensitivity and Specificity of Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification and PCR Methods in Detection of Foodborne Mi-croorganisms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</title><source>PubMed (Medline)</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><creator>Sadeghi, Yasaman ; Kananizadeh, Pegah ; Ohadian Moghadam, Solmaz ; Alizadeh, Ahad ; Pourmand, Mohammad Reza ; Mohammadi, Neda ; Afshar, Davoud ; Ranjbar, Reza</creator><creatorcontrib>Sadeghi, Yasaman ; Kananizadeh, Pegah ; Ohadian Moghadam, Solmaz ; Alizadeh, Ahad ; Pourmand, Mohammad Reza ; Mohammadi, Neda ; Afshar, Davoud ; Ranjbar, Reza</creatorcontrib><description>Background: The loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) method is frequently used for identifying many microorganisms. The present review aimed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of LAMP method for detection of food-borne bacteria and to compare these features with those of polymerase chain reaction (PCR), as an alternative molecular diagnostic procedure, and with cultivation method, as the gold standard method. Methods: The literature was searched in electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE) for recruiting publications within Jan 2000 to Jul 2021. We used the combinations of keywords including foodborne disease, LAMP, PCR, Loop-mediated isothermal amplification, and polymerase chain reaction. Meta-analysis was used to adjust the correlation and heterogeneity between the studies. The efficiency of the methods was presented by negative likelihood ratio, positive likelihood ratio, sensitivity, specificity, and odds ratio using forest plots. A P-value less than 0.05 was considered as statistical significance cut off. The confidence intervals were presented at the 95% interval. Results: Overall, 23 relevant studies were analyzed. The sensitivities of LAMP and PCR methods were estimated to be 96.6% (95% CI: 95.0-97.7) and 95.6% (95%CI: 91.5-97.8), respectively. The specificities of LAMP and PCR were also estimated to be 97.6% (95%CI: 92.6-99.3) and 98.7% (95%CI: 96.5-99.5), respectively. Conclusion: The specificities of LAMP and PCR assays were determined by comparing their results with cultivation method as the gold standard. Overall, the specificity of both PCR and LAMP methods was low for detection of fastidious bacteria. Nevertheless, LAMP and PCR methods have acceptable specificities and sensitivities, and their application in clinical practice necessitates more studies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2251-6085</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2251-6093</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.18502/ijph.v50i11.7571</identifier><language>eng</language><ispartof>Iranian journal of public health, 2021-11</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c288t-115252dc18a174ef7879ca19e2c6d99a8445bdd72e7f26c2d4d9b4e6cc63320e3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,860,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sadeghi, Yasaman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kananizadeh, Pegah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ohadian Moghadam, Solmaz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alizadeh, Ahad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pourmand, Mohammad Reza</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mohammadi, Neda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Afshar, Davoud</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ranjbar, Reza</creatorcontrib><title>The Sensitivity and Specificity of Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification and PCR Methods in Detection of Foodborne Mi-croorganisms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</title><title>Iranian journal of public health</title><description>Background: The loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) method is frequently used for identifying many microorganisms. The present review aimed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of LAMP method for detection of food-borne bacteria and to compare these features with those of polymerase chain reaction (PCR), as an alternative molecular diagnostic procedure, and with cultivation method, as the gold standard method. Methods: The literature was searched in electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE) for recruiting publications within Jan 2000 to Jul 2021. We used the combinations of keywords including foodborne disease, LAMP, PCR, Loop-mediated isothermal amplification, and polymerase chain reaction. Meta-analysis was used to adjust the correlation and heterogeneity between the studies. The efficiency of the methods was presented by negative likelihood ratio, positive likelihood ratio, sensitivity, specificity, and odds ratio using forest plots. A P-value less than 0.05 was considered as statistical significance cut off. The confidence intervals were presented at the 95% interval. Results: Overall, 23 relevant studies were analyzed. The sensitivities of LAMP and PCR methods were estimated to be 96.6% (95% CI: 95.0-97.7) and 95.6% (95%CI: 91.5-97.8), respectively. The specificities of LAMP and PCR were also estimated to be 97.6% (95%CI: 92.6-99.3) and 98.7% (95%CI: 96.5-99.5), respectively. Conclusion: The specificities of LAMP and PCR assays were determined by comparing their results with cultivation method as the gold standard. Overall, the specificity of both PCR and LAMP methods was low for detection of fastidious bacteria. Nevertheless, LAMP and PCR methods have acceptable specificities and sensitivities, and their application in clinical practice necessitates more studies.</description><issn>2251-6085</issn><issn>2251-6093</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9kE1OwzAQRi0EEqVwAHa-QIrtxHHCLip_lVqB2rKOXHtCXCVxFFtFuRKnJEkRq5nRN_M0egjdU7KgCSfswRzbcnHixFC6EFzQCzRjjNMgJml4-d8n_BrdOHckJIoZFzP0sy8B76BxxpuT8T2Wjca7FpQpjBpnW-C1tW2wAW2kB41XzvoSulpWOKvbatyT3thmuvxYbvEGfGm1w6bBT-BBTeGAebFWH2zXAN6YQHXWdl-yMa52jzjDu955qAeQwls4GfiecANKBlkjq94Zd4uuClk5uPurc_T58rxfvgXr99fVMlsHiiWJDyjljDOtaCKpiKAQiUiVpCkwFes0lUkU8YPWgoEoWKyYjnR6iCBWKg5DRiCcI3rmDj8610GRt52pZdfnlOST7HyUnZ9l56Ps8BeKAXeO</recordid><startdate>20211101</startdate><enddate>20211101</enddate><creator>Sadeghi, Yasaman</creator><creator>Kananizadeh, Pegah</creator><creator>Ohadian Moghadam, Solmaz</creator><creator>Alizadeh, Ahad</creator><creator>Pourmand, Mohammad Reza</creator><creator>Mohammadi, Neda</creator><creator>Afshar, Davoud</creator><creator>Ranjbar, Reza</creator><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20211101</creationdate><title>The Sensitivity and Specificity of Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification and PCR Methods in Detection of Foodborne Mi-croorganisms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</title><author>Sadeghi, Yasaman ; Kananizadeh, Pegah ; Ohadian Moghadam, Solmaz ; Alizadeh, Ahad ; Pourmand, Mohammad Reza ; Mohammadi, Neda ; Afshar, Davoud ; Ranjbar, Reza</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c288t-115252dc18a174ef7879ca19e2c6d99a8445bdd72e7f26c2d4d9b4e6cc63320e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sadeghi, Yasaman</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kananizadeh, Pegah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ohadian Moghadam, Solmaz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alizadeh, Ahad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pourmand, Mohammad Reza</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mohammadi, Neda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Afshar, Davoud</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ranjbar, Reza</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Iranian journal of public health</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sadeghi, Yasaman</au><au>Kananizadeh, Pegah</au><au>Ohadian Moghadam, Solmaz</au><au>Alizadeh, Ahad</au><au>Pourmand, Mohammad Reza</au><au>Mohammadi, Neda</au><au>Afshar, Davoud</au><au>Ranjbar, Reza</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Sensitivity and Specificity of Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification and PCR Methods in Detection of Foodborne Mi-croorganisms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</atitle><jtitle>Iranian journal of public health</jtitle><date>2021-11-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><issn>2251-6085</issn><eissn>2251-6093</eissn><abstract>Background: The loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) method is frequently used for identifying many microorganisms. The present review aimed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of LAMP method for detection of food-borne bacteria and to compare these features with those of polymerase chain reaction (PCR), as an alternative molecular diagnostic procedure, and with cultivation method, as the gold standard method. Methods: The literature was searched in electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE) for recruiting publications within Jan 2000 to Jul 2021. We used the combinations of keywords including foodborne disease, LAMP, PCR, Loop-mediated isothermal amplification, and polymerase chain reaction. Meta-analysis was used to adjust the correlation and heterogeneity between the studies. The efficiency of the methods was presented by negative likelihood ratio, positive likelihood ratio, sensitivity, specificity, and odds ratio using forest plots. A P-value less than 0.05 was considered as statistical significance cut off. The confidence intervals were presented at the 95% interval. Results: Overall, 23 relevant studies were analyzed. The sensitivities of LAMP and PCR methods were estimated to be 96.6% (95% CI: 95.0-97.7) and 95.6% (95%CI: 91.5-97.8), respectively. The specificities of LAMP and PCR were also estimated to be 97.6% (95%CI: 92.6-99.3) and 98.7% (95%CI: 96.5-99.5), respectively. Conclusion: The specificities of LAMP and PCR assays were determined by comparing their results with cultivation method as the gold standard. Overall, the specificity of both PCR and LAMP methods was low for detection of fastidious bacteria. Nevertheless, LAMP and PCR methods have acceptable specificities and sensitivities, and their application in clinical practice necessitates more studies.</abstract><doi>10.18502/ijph.v50i11.7571</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2251-6085
ispartof Iranian journal of public health, 2021-11
issn 2251-6085
2251-6093
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_18502_ijph_v50i11_7571
source PubMed (Medline); DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection; EZB Electronic Journals Library; PubMed Central Open Access
title The Sensitivity and Specificity of Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification and PCR Methods in Detection of Foodborne Mi-croorganisms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T19%3A21%3A26IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-crossref&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Sensitivity%20and%20Specificity%20of%20Loop-Mediated%20Isothermal%20Amplification%20and%20PCR%20Methods%20in%20Detection%20of%20Foodborne%20Mi-croorganisms:%20A%20Systematic%20Review%20and%20Meta-Analysis&rft.jtitle=Iranian%20journal%20of%20public%20health&rft.au=Sadeghi,%20Yasaman&rft.date=2021-11-01&rft.issn=2251-6085&rft.eissn=2251-6093&rft_id=info:doi/10.18502/ijph.v50i11.7571&rft_dat=%3Ccrossref%3E10_18502_ijph_v50i11_7571%3C/crossref%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true