Head-to-head comparison of two loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) kits for diagnosis of malaria in a non-endemic setting

Table 3 Malaria species in study samples tested positive vs. negative with LAMP techniques compared to qPCR

Total positive and species identified by qPCR	Study analyses			Previously performed diagnostics
Total positive and species identified by qPCR	qPCR	HumaTurb Loopamp™ Malaria PDT	Alethia^® Illumigene Malaria	Microscopy—correctly identified as pos. or neg.	Microscopy—correct species^a	RDT -correctly identified as pos. or neg.
Total positive	41	41	37	39^b	33	40
P. falciparum	31	31	28	29	25	30
P. ovale	4	4	4	4	4	4
P. vivax	5	5	4	5	4	5
Mix P. falciparum and P. ovale	1	1	1	1	0	1
Negative samples	92	92	88	92	–	91

^aFor some of the incorrect species’ identification by microscopy, one of the two species reported in the patient file was correct
^bIn one of the samples the patient had recently gone through successful treatment, and the microscopy is expected to be negative

ISSN: 1475-2875