SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic point-of-care testing based on loop-mediated isothermal amplification: A prospective, single-center validation study

Rapid and accurate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostic tests are crucial for controlling the spread of infections in emergency settings. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of a point-of-care (POC) test based on loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAM...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Heliyon 2023-03, Vol.9 (3), p.e14564-e14564, Article e14564
Hauptverfasser: Moon, Sung Hun, Kim, Sang-Chul, Kim, Byung Woo, Park, Gwan-Jin, Chai, Hyun-Seok, Kim, Young Min, Kim, Hee Sung, Park, Hee Sue
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Rapid and accurate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostic tests are crucial for controlling the spread of infections in emergency settings. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of a point-of-care (POC) test based on loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) that produces rapid results within 30 min. We prospectively included adult patients (age >19 years) who were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection within the last 3 days and symptomatic patients who had visited the emergency room. Posterior nasopharyngeal (PNP) swabs and throat swabs collected by physicians were used to test the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, and Cohen's Kappa coefficient (k) of the POC index and reference reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) test devices. Of the 352 participants, 102 (29.0%) tested positive via the RT-PCR-based reference test device; the RT-LAMP-based POC test had a sensitivity of 70.6% and specificity of 98.0%, with 93.5% PPV, 89.1% NPV, 35.5% PLR, and 3.4% NLR. Cohen's k correlation of results from the two devices was 0.74. The cycle threshold value between the positive and negative POC test results differed (17.6 vs. 24.6, p 
ISSN:2405-8440
2405-8440
DOI:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14564