Table 3.

Comparison of reliability of different diagnostic tests in detection of Rotavirus group A.

Tests in comparison	Test by test agreement		Agreementc
	Percentage of agreement	Kappa
EM vs ELISAa	85.5%	0.68	Substantial
EM vs commercial RT-iiPCR assay	64.3%	0.37	Fair
EM vs commercial real-time rtRT-PCR kitb	67.5%	0.40	Fair
EM vs in-house rtRT-PCR assay	78.6%	0.56	Moderate
ELISA vs commercial RT-iiPCR assay	74.1%	0.46	Moderate
ELISA vs commercial rtRT-PCR kit	81.2%	0.59	Moderate
ELISA vs in-house rtRT-PCR assay	89.4%	0.74	Substantial
Commercial RT-iiPCR vs commercial rtRT-PCR kit	91.7%	0.84	Almost Perfect
Commercial RT-iiPCR vs in-house rtRT-PCR assay	79.6%	0.62	Substantial
Commercial rtRT-PCR kit vs in-house rtRT-PCR assay	84.3%	0.68	Substantial

^aPremier™ Rotaclone ELISA kit, Meridian Bioscience, USA.

^bLSI VetMAX™ triple ruminant Rotavirus and Coronavirus Real-Time PCR kit, Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA.

^cViera and Garrett, 2005.