Table 3.
Comparison of TAC results with conventional methods and PCR-Luminex results on clinical samples from Tanzania and Bangladesha
| Target | Conventional assay positive |
Conventional assay negative |
PCR-Luminex positive |
PCR-Luminex negative |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TAC+ | TAC− | TAC+ | TAC− | TAC+ | TAC− | TAC+ | TAC− | |
| Adenovirus | 5 | 0 | 34 | 32 | 53 | 0 | 11 | 45 |
| Astrovirus | 6 | 5 | 3 | 58 | 14 | 0 | 1 | 94 |
| Rotavirus | 6 | 2 | 23 | 50 | 30 | 0 | 4 | 75 |
| Campylobacter | 22 | 13 | 5 | 28 | 44 | 2 | 5 | 58 |
| Cryptosporidium | 17 | 4 | 4 | 55 | 24 | 1 | 2 | 82 |
| Giardia | 17 | 3 | 11 | 49 | 32 | 0 | 8 | 69 |
| E. histolytica | 8 | 5 | 9 | 66 | 20 | 2 | 1 | 86 |
| Salmonella | 6 | 0 | 0 | 72 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| V. cholerae | 8 | 0 | 0 | 72 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Shigella/EIEC | 1 | 0 | 12 | 59 | 37 | 0 | 0 | 72 |
| ETEC | ||||||||
| ST | 2 | 0 | 20 | 46 | 38 | 1 | 7 | 63 |
| LT | 8 | 0 | 33 | 27 | 63 | 2 | 4 | 40 |
| EPEC | ||||||||
| eae | 12 | 0 | 44 | 12 | 76 | 0 | 8 | 25 |
| bfpA | 7 | 0 | 22 | 39 | 34 | 0 | 9 | 66 |
| EAEC | ||||||||
| aaiC | 17 | 1 | 22 | 28 | 57 | 2 | 5 | 45 |
| aatA | 26 | 0 | 28 | 14 | 77 | 4 | 5 | 23 |
| STEC | ||||||||
| stx1 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 62 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 98 |
| stx2 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 59 | 10 | 0 | 1 | 98 |
| Ascaris | 8 | 0 | 1 | 79 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Trichuris | 8 | 0 | 1 | 79 | 16 | 0 | 0 | 93 |
| Norovirus GII | ND | ND | ND | ND | 31 | 0 | 3 | 75 |
| Sapovirus | ND | ND | ND | ND | 18 | 0 | 1 | 90 |
| Total | Sensitivity = 85% | Specificity = 77% | Sensitivity = 98% | Specificity = 96% | ||||
a
Values indicate the number of samples. TAC+, TAC-positive samples; TAC−, TAC-negative samples; ND, not done (including C. difficile).