Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Mar 27.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Transplant. 2013 Jun 13;13(7):1859–1870. doi: 10.1111/ajt.12287

Table 4.

Pairwise MFI correlations of 9,604 replicate tests among 7 centers testing Lot 2

Center MFI (mean±SD)1 Pearson correlation coefficient [95% CI2]
A B C D E F G
A 2903±5234
P = 0.02 vs. F
1 0.975 [.973,.977] 0.977 [.975,.978] 0.953 [.950,.955] 0.975 [.974,.977] 0.969 [.967,.971] 0.966 [.963,.968]
B 2877±5141
P = 0.05 vs. F
1 0.986 [.985,.987] 0.969 [.967,.971] 0.986 [.985,.987] 0.980 [.979,.982] 0.973 [.971,.975]
C 2535±4648
P <0.001 vs. F
1 0.970 [.968,.972] 0.991 [.991,.992] 0.988 [.987,.988] 0.979 [.977,.980]
D 2555±4638
P = 0.001 vs. F
1 0.981 [.980,.982] 0.971 [.969,.973] 0.968 [.966,.970]
E 2631±4881
P = 0.05 vs. F
1 0.985 [.984,.986] 0.974 [.972,.975]
F 2754±4879
baseline
1 0.969 [.967,.971]
G 2519±4626
P < 0.001 vs. F
1
1

For testing average center differences, Center F was set as baseline (see Table 2). P-values were calculated using a random effects regression model, which included 6 dichotomous variables (one for each remaining center A–E and G) and a random component representing replicates of kits and beads.

2

Overall 95% confidence intervals for correlations calculated using Fisher’s z transform and a Bonferroni-adjustment for 21 comparisons.