Background Rapid laboratory detection is essential to diagnose norovirus infection. LAMP has many advantages compared with RT‐PCR for detecting norovirus, including high sensitivity, high specificity, rapidity, low cost, and intuitive results, which can be easily read with the naked eye with the help of color‐based reporters. In this study, we intend to analyze the accuracy of LAMP methods for the diagnosis of norovirus infection. Methods Two researchers independently retrieved relevant literature up to January 2021 (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, Wan Fang, and VIP). The researchers screened all articles and extracted their research data for meta‐analysis. QUADAS‐2 tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies by Review Manager 5.3. Forest plots were performed by Meta‐DiSc 1.4 to evaluate the accuracy of the test. Deeks’ funnel plot symmetry tests were conducted by Stata 15.0 to check the potential publication bias. Results Eleven sets of data extracted from the eight included studies were included for meta‐analysis. For the detection of norovirus, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive LR, negative LR, diagnostic OR, and their 95% CI were 0.96 (0.95–0.97), 0.99 (0.99–1.00), 91.14 (31.88–260.56), 0.06 (0.04–0.09), and 1473.68 (562.96–3857.70), respectively. Besides, AUC in the SROC curve was 0.9920. Conclusion LAMP had high sensitivity and specificity in terms of the diagnosis of norovirus infection. However, further extension of this approach should be researched to ensure the accuracy and practicability of this hopeful test in the future.