TABLE 1.
Discordant EBV diagnosesa
| Diagnosis | Site(s) | No. of samples with discordant diagnosis/no. tested (%)
|
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Novitec | Biotest | Virotech | DiaSorin | ||
| EBV seronegative | A | 3/21 | 1/21 | 1/21 | 9/21 |
| B | 2/32 | 7/32 | 2/32 | 3/32 | |
| C | 0/20 | 3/20 | 1/20 | 1/20 | |
| Primary infection | A | 1/19 | 0/19 | 0/19 | 3/19 |
| B | 1/21 | 1/21 | 2/21 | 1/21 | |
| C | 1/26 | 2/26 | 2/26 | 3/26 | |
| Past infection | A | 0/40 | 0/40 | 5/40 | 2/40 |
| B | 2/23 | 0/23 | 6/23 | 7/23 | |
| C | 2/33 | 2/33 | 8/33 | 5/33 | |
| Cross-reactivity | A | 0/20 | 1/20 | 1/20 | 1/20 |
| C | 1/9 | 1/9 | 3/9 | 2/9 | |
| Total | All | 13/264 (4.9)b | 18/264 (6.8)c | 31/264 (11.7)d | 37/264 (14.0)e |
a
Interpretation of VCA IgG, VCA IgM, and EBNA-1 IgG results in accordance with the manufacturer's interpretation criteria. The IFA reference method was used sites A (Homburg), B (Stuttgart), and C (Dresden).
b
Kappa value, 0.92.
c
Kappa value, 0.89.
d
Kappa value, 0.82.
e
Kappa value, 0.78.