Table 1.

Articles comparing LAMP methods with RT-PCR for COVID-19 detection available at the time this study

Preprint	Country	Methods	Samples used for validation	Sensitivity of LAMP (for ORF1ab gene) compared with RT-PCR	Specificity of LAMP (for ORF1ab gene) compared with RT-PCR
El-Tholeth et al. [2]	USA	Two stage isothermal amplification (COVID-19 Penn-RAMP) targeting ORF1ab	No SARS-CoV-2 samples available in USA at time of study so samples with inactivated HIV virus with synthesised LAMP sequences tested. Four positive samples used.	75%	100%
Lamb et al. [3]	USA	LAMP using unspecified primers	No SARS-CoV-2 samples; synthesised LAMP sequences tested.	Study was not powered to determine sensitivity in a clinical population	N/a
Zhang et al. [4]	China	LAMP using ORF1ab, and N gene primers	6 positive swabs by RT-PCR	100%	N/a
Yu et al. [5]	China	LAMP using ORF1ab gene primers	43 positive swabs by RT-PCR	97.6%	N/a
Yang et al. [6]	China	LAMP using ORF1ab, E and N gene primers	208 swabs (17 positive & 191 negative by RT-PCR)	87.5% (confidence intervals not available)	99% (confidence intervals not available)
Yan et al. [7]	China	LAMP using ORF1ab, S-123 gene primers	130 specimens (both swabs and BAL specimens) – 58 positive, 72 negative	100%	100%

BAL Broncho-alveolar lavage, USA United States of America, HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus