Table 3.
HSV-1 performance compared to culture and PCR
| Assaya | Resultb | No. (%) with result: |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elvisc |
PCRd |
PIS |
|||||
| + | − | + | − | + | − | ||
| Qx UVT | + | 60 (96.8) | 6 | 71 (98.6) | 0 | 71 (95.9) | 0 |
| − | 2 | 244 (97.6) | 1 | 434 (100) | 3 | 242 (100) | |
| Total | 62 | 250 | 72 | 434 | 74 | 242 | |
| Qx WS | + | 59 (96.7) | 12 | 71 (100) | 5 | 71 (97.3) | 5 |
| − | 2 | 235 (95.1) | 0 | 426 (98.8) | 2 | 234 (97.9) | |
| Total | 61 | 247 | 71 | 431 | 73 | 239 | |
a
Qx UVT, HSVQx assay performed using samples collected in universal transport medium; Qx WS, HSVQx assay performed using the wet-swab transport system provided with the assay.
b
+, positive; −, negative.
c
Elvis culture system results. The assay could be performed only on HSV-2 culture-negative samples, while PCR was performed on all specimens. Thus, Elvis and PIS comparisons have lower total sample sizes.
d
PCR performed by the University of Washington.