The Sensitivity and Specificity of Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification and PCR Methods in Detection of Foodborne Microorganisms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Food-borne pathogen
Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP)
Polymerase chain reaction
Sensitivity
Specificity
Journal
Iranian journal of public health
ISSN: 2251-6093
Titre abrégé: Iran J Public Health
Pays: Iran
ID NLM: 7505531
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2021
Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
10
08
2021
accepted:
25
09
2021
entrez:
28
2
2022
pubmed:
1
3
2022
medline:
1
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
RESULTS
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
CONCLUSIONS
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35223591
doi: 10.18502/ijph.v50i11.7571
pii: IJPH-50-2172
pmc: PMC8826321
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
2172-2182Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Sadeghi et al. Published by Tehran University of Medical Sciences.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests.
Références
Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jun 15;28(12):E63
pubmed: 10871386
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2020 Mar 18;86(7):
pubmed: 32005729
Indian J Microbiol. 2014 Mar;54(1):80-6
pubmed: 24426171
Food Res Int. 2012 Jul 1;47(2):166-173
pubmed: 22778501
Clin Lab. 2011;57(11-12):919-24
pubmed: 22239022
Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2014 Mar;11(3):207-14
pubmed: 24328501
J Clin Microbiol. 2011 May;49(5):1816-21
pubmed: 21411571
J Clin Microbiol. 2012 Jan;50(1):91-7
pubmed: 22031701
Cell Mol Biol (Noisy-le-grand). 2016 Aug 31;62(10):32-6
pubmed: 27609471
Int J Food Microbiol. 2009 Aug 15;133(3):252-8
pubmed: 19540609
PLoS One. 2016 May 12;11(5):e0155101
pubmed: 27171380
Iran J Microbiol. 2015 Aug;7(4):185-90
pubmed: 26697156
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010 Jul;83(1):56-60
pubmed: 20595478
Mymensingh Med J. 2010 Jan;19(1):1-4
pubmed: 20046163
Kansenshogaku Zasshi. 2012 Nov;86(6):741-8
pubmed: 23367849
Curr Microbiol. 2011 Dec;63(6):511-6
pubmed: 21935669
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003 Mar;69(3):1383-90
pubmed: 12620820
Sci Rep. 2020 May 8;10(1):7768
pubmed: 32385390
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014 Jun;79(2):135-40
pubmed: 24709368
Uirusu. 2004 Jun;54(1):107-12
pubmed: 15449911
J Clin Microbiol. 2013 Feb;51(2):481-6
pubmed: 23175264
Biol Pharm Bull. 2015;38(1):82-7
pubmed: 25744462
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 26;8(12):e83138
pubmed: 24386151
J Food Sci. 2009 Oct;74(8):M446-52
pubmed: 19799672
Microb Pathog. 2017 Apr;105:245-250
pubmed: 28167125
Gene. 2013 Feb 25;515(2):421-5
pubmed: 23266627
Biotechniques. 2000 Nov;29(5):1018-20, 1022-4
pubmed: 11084864
Front Microbiol. 2018 Sep 03;9:2089
pubmed: 30233554
Mol Biol Rep. 2012 Jan;39(1):445-9
pubmed: 21573733
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013 May;79(9):2891-8
pubmed: 23435884