Open AccessDiagnostic value of loop‐mediated isothermal amplification assay for hand, foot, and mouth disease
Author(s) -
Chen YingZhou,
Zhan ZhiQing,
Zhou LiQuan,
Chen MinShan,
Cao XunJie,
Li YaPing,
Guo XuGuang
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of clinical laboratory analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.536
H-Index - 50
eISSN - 1098-2825
pISSN - 0887-8013
DOI - 10.1002/jcla.23776
Subject(s) - loop mediated isothermal amplification , confidence interval , medicine , hand foot and mouth disease , meta analysis , reverse transcription loop mediated isothermal amplification , polymerase chain reaction , disease , biology , reverse transcriptase , genetics , dna , gene
Background Nowadays, hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) has a significant negative impact on children's health, especially in the Asia‐Pacific region. Loop‐mediated isothermal amplification assay (LAMP) is a highly efficient and convenient novel tool. However, its diagnostic accuracy for HFMD is still not clear. Therefore, we conducted a meta‐analysis in order to evaluate the potential of LAMP assay for the diagnosis of HFMD, in which the reference standard was polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Methods A protocol was predetermined (CRD42020212882) in PROSPERO. We retrieved seven databases including PubMed for relevant studies published before October 2020. Articles were included if they compared the diagnostic efficiency of LAMP with PCR for HFMD through detecting clinical samples which was more than 15. Statistical analysis was performed by STATA 15.1 software. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. No funding was used for the study. Results A total of 18 retrospective studies including 2495 samples from China were finally included. Reference standards of them included RT‐PCR and non‐RT‐PCR. The merged sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were 1.00 (0.97–1.00) and 0.97 (0.88–0.99), respectively. The pooled PLR, NLR, and DOR with 95% CI were 11.17 (5.91–21.11), 0.05 (0.03–0.09), and 538.12 (183.17–1580.83), respectively. The AUC of SROC was 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99–1.00). Conclusion In conclusion, our research revealed high sensitivity and specificity of LAMP in diagnosing HFMD. However, more high‐quality research is required to prove this conclusion.