Sadeghi Yasaman, Kananizadeh Pegah, Moghadam Solmaz Ohadian, Alizadeh Ahad, Pourmand Mohammad Reza, Mohammadi Neda, Afshar Davoud, Ranjbar Reza
Department of Pathobiology, Urology Research Center, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
MAHAK Hematology Oncology Research Center, MAHAK Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Iran J Public Health. 2021 Nov;50(11):2172-2182. doi: 10.18502/ijph.v50i11.7571.
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.
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 value less than 0.05 was considered as statistical significance cut off. The confidence intervals were presented at the 95% interval.
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.
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.
环介导等温扩增(LAMP)方法常用于鉴定多种微生物。本综述旨在评估LAMP方法检测食源细菌的敏感性和特异性,并将这些特征与作为替代分子诊断程序的聚合酶链反应(PCR)以及作为金标准方法的培养方法进行比较。
在电子数据库(PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science和EMBASE)中检索2000年1月至2021年7月期间的招募出版物。我们使用了包括食源性疾病、LAMP、PCR、环介导等温扩增和聚合酶链反应等关键词的组合。采用荟萃分析来调整研究之间的相关性和异质性。使用森林图通过阴性似然比、阳性似然比、敏感性、特异性和比值比来呈现方法的效率。小于0.05的值被视为统计显著性临界值。置信区间以95%区间呈现。
总体而言,分析了23项相关研究。LAMP和PCR方法的敏感性估计分别为96.6%(95%CI:95.0 - 97.7)和95.6%(95%CI:91.5 - 97.8)。LAMP和PCR的特异性估计分别为97.6%(95%CI:92.6 - 99.3)和98.7%(95%CI:96.5 - 99.5)。
通过将LAMP和PCR检测结果与作为金标准的培养方法进行比较来确定其特异性。总体而言,PCR和LAMP方法检测苛养菌的特异性都较低。然而,LAMP和PCR方法具有可接受的特异性和敏感性,它们在临床实践中的应用需要更多研究。