TABLE 3.
Comparison of two NASBA methods and cell culture for detection of EV-positive samples
| Method | No. (%) of true EV positives detected by the indicated method in:
|
||
|---|---|---|---|
| CSF (n = 86) | Stool (n = 27) | All samples (n = 113) | |
| NASBA-ECL | 22 | 18 | 40 (100) |
| NASBA-beacon | 21 | 17a | 38 (95.0) |
| Cell culture | 13 | 4b | 17 (42.5)c |
a
One NASBA-ECL positive, culture-negative stool sample was indeterminate by real-time NASBA-beacon.
b
The predominant EV type identified was coxsackievirus A1, which grows poorly in cell culture.
c
Both NASBA-ECL and NASBA-beacon were more sensitive than culture (P < 0.0001 by McNemar's test).