TABLE 1.
Concordance between predicted typing from WGS and conventional typing results
| Surveillance type | In silico serotyping, no. (%) | In silico binary typing, no. (%) | In silico MLST, no. (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retrospective (n = 423) | 340/349 (97)a | 319/346 (92)b | 383/383 (100) |
| Prospective (n = 97) | 92/96 (96)c | 95/97 (98)d | 97/97 (100) |
| Adjustede total (n = 520) | 439/445 (99) | 429/443 (97) | 480/480 (100) |
| Reference genomes (n = 59) | 53/55 (96) | 22/22 (100) |
a
Includes 4 isolates with probable error in conventional typing result.
b
Includes 22 isolates with probable error in conventional typing result.
c
Includes 3 isolates with probable error in conventional typing result.
d
Includes 1 isolate with probable error in conventional typing result.
e
Adjusted totals include concordant results plus initially discordant results where repeat typing was concordant with the in silico result (i.e., probable error in the initial conventional-typing result).