Skip to main content
. 2020 May 4;20:320. doi: 10.1186/s12879-020-4932-0

Table 4.

Clinical evaluation of the Deki Reader v100

RDT brand Result compared to SOC aConcordance n (%) Error/not analysed (Deki)
HIV positive HIV negative aSensitivity % (95%CI) aSpecificity % (95%CI) Deki & HCW invalid (true)
True False True False
Algorithm 1: Screening: Advanced Quality Anti-HIV (1&2); Confirmatory: HIV 1/2/0 Tri-Line
Advanced Quality Anti-HIV (1&2) (n = 2463) 386 15 1817 2

99.5

(98.2–99.9)

99.2

(98.7–99.5)

32 2252 (99.3) 196
HIV 1/2/0 Tri-Line (n = 352) 261 b 1 15

100

(98.6–99.8)

93.8

69.8–99.8)

5 281 (99.7) 70
Algorithm 2: Screening: HIV 1/2/0 Tri-Line Confirmatory: First Response® HIV-1-2-0
HIV 1/2/0 Tri-Line (n = 1997) 153 64 1588

100

(97.6–100)

96.1

(95.1–97.0)

- 1741 (96.5) 192
First Response® HIV 1–2-0 (n = 129) 115 1

100

(96.8–100)

100

(2.5–100)

1 117 (100) 12
Overall RDTs (n = 4941) 915 80 3421 2

99.8

(99.2–100)

97.7

(97.2–98.2)

38 4374 (97.8) 470

aConcordance includes invalid specimens, but excludes errors and specimens that were not analysed. Sensitivity and specificity only includes specimens that gave a valid positive or negative result

bSOC positive and Deki Reader invalid. Specimen was incorrectly processed and reported; this a HCW error. See Fig. 3c