TABLE 3.
Comparative distribution of EIA results for VP2G1 and VP2G1Kit EIA in two study populations
| VP2G1Kit test result | No. of samples with VP2G1Cam test result
|
No. of samples discordant/total no. of samples | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | EQa | ||
| United Kingdom donorsb | ||||
| Positive | 270 | 0 | 0 | 0/270 |
| Negative | 1 | 121 | 2 | 3/124 |
| EQ | 2 | 4 | 0 | 6/6 |
| No. of samples discordant/total no. of samples | 3/273 | 4/125 | 2/2 | 9/400 |
| Ghanaian childrenc | ||||
| Positive | 27 | 0 | 2 | 2/29 |
| Negative | 5 | 356 | 4 | 9/365 |
| EQ | 1 | 5 | 0 | 6/6 |
| No. of samples discordant/total no. of samples | 5/33 | 5/361 | 6/6 | 17/400 |
a
EQ, equivocal.
b
Agreement of 97.8% (95% CI, 95.8 to 99.0) between samples tested with VP2G1Cam and VP2G1Kit was observed. Kappa and Spearman correlation coefficients were 0.95 and 0.94, respectively.
c
Agreement of 95.8% (95% CI, 93.3 to 97.5) between samples tested with VP2G1Cam and VP2G1Kit was observed. Kappa and Spearman correlation coefficients were 0.75 and 0.63, respectively.