| Title |
A protocol for a systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of Loop-mediated-isothermal AMPlification (LAMP) in diagnosis of invasive meningococcal disease in children
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-018-0747-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Waterfield, Derek Fairley, Fiona Lynn, Bronagh Blackwood, Michael D. Shields |
| Abstract |
Meningococcal disease (MD) is notoriously difficult to diagnose in the early stages of the illness and presents similarly to many self-limiting viral infections. This mandates a cautious approach to diagnosis and initial management of suspected MD with many children receiving precautionary broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics. Despite this approach, some children are still diagnosed late. In the last 10 years, there have been advances in nucleic acid amplification techniques, and there is now a rapid test that can detect meningococcal DNA in under 30 min. This Loop-mediated-isothermal AMPlification (LAMP) technology may make it possible to diagnose MD at initial presentation thereby greatly improving outcomes and minimising harms through unnecessary treatment. The aim of this systematic review is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of LAMP technology in cases of suspected MD. The review has been registered with PROSPERO [CRD42017078026]. To identify relevant studies, we will search MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and The Cochrane Library. In additional, we will hand-search reference lists and grey literature including contacting the manufacturers of commercially available LAMP tests for MD for any unpublished data. Two reviewers will independently screen study eligibility and extract data. Methodological quality will be assessed, by two authors, according to the revised tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2); any discrepancies will be resolved by a third author. The following test characteristics will be extracted into 2 × 2 tables for all included studies: true positives, false positives, true negatives, and false negatives. Study-specific estimates of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals will be displayed in forest plots. To investigate heterogeneity, we will include covariates such as age, sample type, and study type into a bivariate random-effects model. This review will help determine the diagnostic accuracy of LAMP technology in diagnosing MD from blood, CSF and throat swabs in children. The data will help to define where in the diagnostic pathway LAMP could be useful including potential as a point-of-care test for children at first presentation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Comoros | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 18 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 20 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 June 2018.
All research outputs
#4,046,041
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#806
of 2,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,465
of 328,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#28
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,710 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.