TABLE 2.
Performance of POC testinga
| Scenariob | POC result | No. with SOC result: |
POC sensitivity (95% CI) | POC specificity (95% CI) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | Indeterminate | Invalid/rejectedc | Total | ||||
| A | Positive | 101 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 102 | ||
| Negative | 0 | 214 | 3 | 3 | 220 | |||
| Total | 101 | 214 | 4 | 3 | 322 | |||
| B | Positive | 102 | 0 | 102 | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| Negative | 0 | 217 | 217 | |||||
| Total | 102 | 217 | 319 | |||||
| C | Positive | 101 | 1 | 102 | 0.9712 (0.9186–0.9901) | 0.9953 (0.9741–0.9992) | ||
| Negative | 3 | 214 | 217 | |||||
| Total | 104 | 215 | 319 | |||||
The two POC technologies had perfect concordance.
A, performance of point-of-care (POC) testing compared to standard-of-care (SOC) testing; B, best-case scenario in which all POC results are assumed to be concordant for the indeterminate SOC cases; C, worst-case scenario in which all POC results are assumed to be discordant for the indeterminate SOC cases.
Excluded from sensitivity/specificity calculations.