Skip to main content
. 2020 Oct 8;8(12):1192–1200. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30454-9

Table 3.

Diagnostic accuracy measures for QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel and laboratory PCR in the point-of-care testing group (n=469)

QIAstat-Dx SARS-CoV-2 assay
Laboratory PCR
n/N % (95% CI) n/N % (95% CI)
Positive results 180/469 38·4% (34·0–42·9) 155/469 33·0% (28·8–37·5)
True (positive predictive value) 176/180 97·8% (94·3–99·2) 152/155 98·1% (94·3–99·4)
False 4/180 2·2% (0·6–5·6) 3/155 1·9% (0·4–5·6)
Negative results 289/469 61·6% (57·1–66·0) 314/469 67·0% (62·5–71·2)
True (negative predictive value) 288/289 99·7% (97·6–99·9) 289/314 92·0% (88·5–94·8)
False 1/289 0·3% (0·0–1·9) 25/314 8·0% (5·2–11·5)
Sensitivity 176/177 99·4% (96·9–100·0) 152/177 85·9% (79·9–90·7)
Specificity 288/292 98·6% (96·5–99·6) 289/292 99·0% (97·0–99·8)
Positive likelihood ratio .. 72·6% (27·4–192·1) .. 83·6% (27·1–258·1)
Negative likelihood ratio .. 0·01% (0·0–0·04) .. 0·14% (0·1–0·21)
Overall accuracy 464/469 98·9% (97·5–99·7) 441/469 94·0% (91·5–96·0)

Results from each assay were compared against a composite reference standard (PCR assay with confirmation by a second assay), which showed 177 positive cases (prevalence 37·7% [33·3–42·3]) and 292 negative cases.