Table 1.

Overall performance of the RT-PCR/ESI-MS platform compared to conventional virology methods only for 190 subjects (A) and to both clinical virology and secondary RT-PCR based methods combined (B, N = 194).

		A		B
		Clinical virology reference tests (N = 188)		Combineda reference tests (N = 194b)
		Positive	Negative	Positive	Negative
RT-PCR/ESI-MS	Positive	41	28c	62	15
RVSII assay	Negative	5d	114	5	112
	Total	46	142	67	127

Raw sensitivity and specificity were 89.1% and 80.3% (95% C.I.: 76.4–96.4, 72.7–86.5%, respectively). Sensitivity and specificity in secondary analysis were 92.5% and 88.2% (95% C.I.: 83.4–97.5%, 81.2–93.2%, respectively). Samples from 190 subjects had one or more detection and sum to 195 total isolations.

^aCombined reference tests defined as combination of clinical virology reference tests and secondary RT-PCR based method.

^bExcludes one coronavirus detection with insufficient volume to send to the secondary PCR method.

^cExcludes seven coronavirus detections that were not confirmable with clinical virology reference tests.

^dIncluded one coronavirus detection that was detected by virology reference test as adenovirus.