. 2015 Feb 19;53(3):830–837. doi: 10.1128/JCM.02648-14

TABLE 3.

Diagnostic performance of the RT-RPA and RT-LAMP assays against that of the qRT-PCR assay in serum samples (n = 203) from patients with clinically suspected dengue at UMMC

Assay and results	qRT-PCR results (no.)^a		Sensitivity (% [95% CI^b])	Specificity (% [95% CI])	PPV^c (% [95% CI])	NPV^d (% [95% CI])
Assay and results	Pos	Neg	Sensitivity (% [95% CI^b])	Specificity (% [95% CI])	PPV^c (% [95% CI])	NPV^d (% [95% CI])
RT-RPA^e^,^f
Pos	47	3^g	77.0 (65.1–85.8)	97.9 (94.0–99.3)	94.0 (83.8–97.9)	90.8 (85.2–94.5)
Neg	14	139
RT-LAMP^h
Pos	46	5ⁱ	75.4 (63.3–84.5)	96.5 (92.0–98.5)	90.2 (79.0–95.7)	90.1 (84.4–93.9)
Neg	15	137

Pos, positive; Neg, negative.

CI, confidence interval.

PPV, positive predictive value.

NPV, negative predictive value.

Agreement of results between RT-RPA and qRT-PCR: κ = 0.790, P < 0.001.

Agreement of results between RT-RPA and RT-LAMP: κ = 0.723, P < 0.001.

One RT-RPA false-positive sample tested positive by dengue IgM ELISA.

Agreement of results between RT-LAMP and qRT-PCR: κ = 0.754, p < 0.001.

ⁱ

One RT-LAMP false-positive sample tested positive by the dengue IgM ELISA.