TABLE 2.
Reference, year | Reference Standard | No. of studies | Sensitivity | Specificity | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kato et al,38 2005 | Cytotoxicity assay | 74 | 0.97 | 0.71 | Authors attribute high false-positive rate to superiority of LAMP, eg, more sensitive than cytotoxicity assay |
Lalande et al,39 2011 | Toxigenic culture | 472 | 0.92 | 0.99 | Study indicates LAMP to be more sensitive than cytotoxicity assay, to which it was compared |
Doing and Hintz,37 2012 | Agreement with ProGastro PCR test | 446 | 0.98 | 0.99 | Cases without agreement tested with cytotoxicity assay |
Boyanton et al,35 2012 | Agreement between 4 different molecular tests for CDI | 139 | 0.95 | 0.97 | Unresolved cases tested with toxigenic culture |
Norén et al,40 2011 | Toxigenic culture | 272 | 0.98 | 0.98 | … |
Ota and McGowan,36 2012 | Cytotoxicity assay | 141 | 0.89 | 0.98 | LAMP tests were performed as part of a 2-step glutamate dehydrogenase assay |
LAMP = loop-mediated isothermal amplification; PCR = polymerase chain reaction.