Table 2.
The evaluation results of hantavirus positivity in samples using ELISA and WB.
| Hantavirus | |||||||
| IgM ELISAn (%) | P | IgG ELISA n (%) | P | IgG WB n (%) | P | Totaln | |
| Sex | |||||||
| Male | 6 (7) | 0.588 | 6 (7) | 0.971 | 5 (6) | 0.099 | 90 |
| Female | 5 (5) | 7 (7) | 1 (1) | 103 | |||
| Age distribution | |||||||
| 18–45 | 7 (8) | 0.212 | 4 (5) | 0.356 | 1 (1) | 0.239 | 83 |
| 46–70 | 4 (4) | 9 (8) | 5 (5) | 110 | |||
| Education status | |||||||
| Below middle school | 6 (4) | 0.342 | 10 (7) | 0.796 | 5 (4) | 1.000 | 136 |
| Middle school | 4 (9) | 3 (7) | 1 (2) | 43 | |||
| University | 1 (7) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 14 | |||
| Monthly income level (TL) | |||||||
| <1500 | 8(6) | 1.000 | 10 (7) | 1.000 | 5 (3) | 1.000 | 143 |
| ≥1500 | 3 (6) | 3 (6) | 1 (2) | 50 | |||
| Job groups | |||||||
| Farmer | 6 (4) | 0.064 | 8 (6) | 0.591 | 3 (2) | 0.306 | 136 |
| Laborer | 1 (3) | 3 (9) | 2 (6) | 32 | |||
| Civil servant | 4 (16) | 2 (8) | 1 (4) | 25 | |||
| House structure | |||||||
| Reinforced concrete | 8 (7) | 0.854 | 9 (7) | 0.573 | 5 (4) | 0.078 | 122 |
| Wooden | 3 (5) | 3 (5) | 0 (0) | 62 | |||
| Mud-brick | 0 (0) | 1 (11) | 1 (11) | 9 | |||
| Working in forestry | |||||||
| Yes | 7 (6) | 0.918 | 8 (7) | 0.989 | 5 (4) | 0.412 | 120 |
| No | 4 (6) | 5 (7) | 1 (1) | 73 | |||
| Total | 11 (6) | 13 (7) | 6 (3) | 193 | |||