Skip to main content
. 2011 Mar 22;1222(1):6–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.05964.x

Table 2.

Sensitivity and specificity of xTAG RVP in 544 NP swabs prospectively collected during the 2005/2006 flu season

Virus Diagnostic sensitivity Diagnostic specificity
TP/(TP+FN)a Percent 95% Confidence interval for sensitivity TN/(TN+FP)a Percent 95% Confidence interval for specificity
Flu A 81/84 96.4% 89.9–99.3% 441/460 95.9% 93.6–97.5%
Flu A‐H1b 6/6 100% 54.1–100% 532/532 100% 99.3–100%
Flu A‐H3b 66/72 91.7% 82.7–96.9% 463/469 98.7% 97.2–99.5%
Flu B 54/59 91.5% 81.3–97.2% 469/485 96.7% 94.7–98.1%
RSV A 23/23 100% 85.2–100% 501/509 98.4% 96.9–99.3%
RSV B 33/33 100% 89.4–100% 492/505 97.4% 95.6–98.6%
Para 1 3/3 100% 29.2–100% 540/541 99.8% 99.0–100%
Para 2 6/6 100% 54.1–100% 537/538 99.8% 99.0–100%
Para 3 16/19 84.2% 60.4–96.6% 523/525 99.6% 98.6–100%
Rhinoc 43/43 100% 91.8–100% 168/183 91.8% 86.8–95.3%
Adenod 18/23 78.3% 56.3–92.5% 520/520 100% 99.3–100%
hMPVe 24/25  96% 79.7–99.9% 320/324 98.8% 96.9–99.7%

aTP, true positive (i.e., xTAG RVP positive result is concordant with comparator method result); FP, false positive (i.e., xTAG RVP positive result is discordant with comparator method result); TN, true negative (i.e., xTAG RVP negative result is concordant with comparator method result); FN, false negative (i.e., xTAG RVP negative result is discordant with comparator method result). Depending on the virus, the comparator method was one, or a combination of culture, DFA, qRT PCR, and/or sequencing.

bInfluenza A prevalence data reported on http://www.cdc.gov for the 2005/06 flu season indicate that the dominant strains circulating at that time were classified as the seasonal Flu A‐H3 subtype, with significantly fewer cases classified as seasonal Flu A‐H1 being reported.

cDue to a high degree of sequence homology, significant cross‐reactivity between enterovirus and rhinovirus is expected.

dData from reference strains together with sequence analysis of clinical samples included in this dataset suggest that the overall sensitivity values for adenovirus were negatively impacted by poor detection of serotypes falling within the adenovirus C species.

ehMPV sensitivity and specificity was established against a composite comparator method (culture and PCR followed by bidirectional sequencing or qRT PCR).