Table 4 Comparison of the commonly used methods for HCV detection
Technology | Limit of detection | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Advantages | Disadvantages | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay | - | 98.7 | 100 | High specificity and easy operation | Cannot detect viremia in acute infection during the window period | [32] |
Real-time PCR assay | 100 IU/ml | 99.0 | 100.0 | Quantitative analysis | Require expensive equipment and trained technicians | [33] |
RT-LAMP combined with visual reagent assay | 10–100 ng/reaction | 95.5 | 100 | High specificity; without opening the reaction tubes for results identification | The results are ambiguous when the LAMP product concentrations are low | [29] Current study |
RT-LAMP-coupled CRISPR-Cas12 assay | 10 ng/µL | 96 | 100 | High sensitivity and specificity | The operation is complicated | [30] |
RT-LAMP-AuNPs-LFB assay | 20 copies/test | 100 95% CI (92.92–100%) | 100 95% CI (92.89–100%) | High sensitivity and specificity; accurate and visual interpretation; easy to operate and cost-saving | Need open the reaction tube for results identification | Current study |
Bioelectric recognition assay | 0.1 nmol/L | 90.0 | 84.4 | Aptamer/DNAzyme can replicate hundreds of times in a short time | Extremely complicated | [34] |
Amperometric biosensor assay | 1.82 × 10− 21 mol/L | - | - | High selectivity for substrates | Used biosensors exhibit limited stability | [35] |