↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic performance of the loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) based illumigene® malaria assay in a non-endemic region

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diagnostic performance of the loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) based illumigene® malaria assay in a non-endemic region
Published in
Malaria Journal, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12936-017-2065-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne-Sophie De Koninck, Lieselotte Cnops, Mattias Hofmans, Jan Jacobs, Dorien Van den Bossche, Jan Philippé

Abstract

Light microscopy and antigen-based rapid diagnostic tests are the primary diagnostic tools for detecting malaria, although being labour-intensive and frequently challenged by lack of personnel's experience and low levels of parasite density. The latter being especially important in non-endemic settings. Novel molecular techniques aim to overcome this drawback. The objective of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of the illumigene malaria assay(®) (Meridian Bioscience) compared to microscopy, RDT and real-time PCR. This loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay is a qualitative in vitro diagnostic test for the direct detection of Plasmodium spp. DNA in human venous whole blood samples. The illumigene assay was assessed on a retrospective panel of stored blood samples (n = 103) from returned travellers and external quality control samples (n = 12). Additionally the assay was prospectively assessed on 30 fresh routine samples with a request for malaria diagnosis. The illumigene assay was compared to microscopy, RDT and Plasmodium species specific real-time PCR. In the retrospective evaluation, the illumigene assay showed 100% agreement with the real-time PCR, RDT and microscopy yielding a sensitivity and specificity of 100% (95% CI 95.1-100% and 89.7-100%, respectively). Seven samples from patients recently treated for Plasmodium falciparum infection that were RDT positive and microscopy negative yielded positive test results. The performance of the illumigene assay equals that of microscopy combined with RDT in the prospective panel with three false negative RDT results and one false negative microscopy result. Excellent concordance with PCR was observed. The limit of detection of the assay approached 0.5 parasites/µL for both P. falciparum and Plasmodium vivax. In non-endemic regions where the diagnostic process for malaria infections is questioned by lack of experience and low levels of parasite densities, the illumigene assay can be of value. Due to its high sensitivity, the LAMP assay may be considered as primary diagnostic test. The results of this study indicate that negative screen results do not need further confirmation. However, before implementation, this approach needs to be confirmed in larger, prospective studies. A shortcoming of this assay is that no species identification nor determination of parasite density are possible.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 19 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 10%
Engineering 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 25 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,392,095
of 24,400,706 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#4,179
of 5,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,679
of 330,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#112
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,400,706 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 330,922 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.