Table 3.

Comparison of sensitivity of rotavirus A detection in field faecal samples by electron microscopy (EM), CB‐ELISA method and commercial DAS‐ELISA kit

	CB‐ELISA‐positive EM‐positive			CB‐ELISA‐positive EM‐negative			CB‐ELISA‐negative EM‐positive			CB‐ELISA‐negative EM‐negative
	n*	CB‐ELISA†	DAS‐ELISA‡	n*	CB‐ELISA†	DAS‐ELISA‡	n*	CB‐ELISA†	DAS‐ELISA‡	n*	CB‐ELISA†	DAS‐ELISA‡
DAS‐ELISA‐ positive	6	1.367/0.221	2.620	7	1.296/0.156	2.324	0	–	–	0	–	–
DAS‐ELISA dubious	1	1.564/0.061	0.216	0	–	–	0	–	–	0	–	–
DAS‐ELISA‐ negative	2	0.850/0.026	0.161	10	0.683/0.060	0.060	5	0.025/0.020	0.011	10	0.030/0.025	0.014
Total sample (N)	9			17			5			10

*Number (n) of faecal samples evaluated as positive, dubious or negative by commercial DAS‐ELISA kit.

†Mean absorbances obtained by CB‐ELISA method by examination of samples in wells incubated in presence of SwSneg./pos., respectively. Samples were evaluated as positive at the values of NA > 0.1 and %B > 50%.

‡Mean absorbances (in italics) obtained by commercial DAS‐ELISA kit by examination of n samples in duplicates. Samples were evaluated according to the corrected absorbance (cA) as positive at cA > 0.3; dubious at cA = 0.2–0.3 and negative at cA < 0.2.

DAS‐ELISA, double antibody sandwich ELISA; CB‐ELISA, competitive blocking ELISA.