Skip to main content
. 2020 Jul 6;39(11):2143–2152. doi: 10.1007/s10096-020-03946-0

Table 2.

Sensitivity of all algorithms

Single-tier STTT MTTT-strict MTTT-permissive
No. of true positive (sensitivity %) 95%-CI No. of true positive (sensitivity %) 95%-CI No. of true positive (sensitivity %) 95%-CI No. of true positive (sensitivity %) 95%-CI
EM sera (n = 228)
Enz1 180 (78.9)1 73.1–84.1 Enz1/RecomL 106 (46.5) 39.9–53.2 Enz1/C6 162 (71.1)1,2 64.7–76.8 173 (75.9)1,4,5 69.8–81.3
Enz2 184 (80.7)1 75.0–85.6 Enz2/RecomL 106 (46.5) 39.9–53.2 Enz2/C6 166 (72.8)1,2 66.5–78.5 177 (77.6)1,4,5 71.7–82.9
Lia 160 (70.2)1 63.8–76.0 Lia/RecomL 101 (44.3) 37.7–51.0 Lia/C6 153 (67.1)1,2 60.6–73.2 166 (72.8)1,3,4,5 66.5–78.5
C6 178 (78.1)* 72.1–83.3 C6/RecomL 102 (44.7) 38.2–51.4

1p < 0.01 as compared with equivalent STTT using (McNemar/exact McNemar) | (*C6 vs. C6/RecomL p = 0.016)

2p < 0.01 as compared with single-tier C6-ELISA (one-sample t test)

3p < 0.01 as compared with single-tier C6 (exact McNemar)

4p < 0.01 as compared with equivalent MTTT-strict (one-sample t test)

5Not significant as compared with equivalent single-tier (exact McNemar)

A test result was considered to be (true) positive when either the IgM component, IgG component or both were positive

95%-CI, 95% confidence interval; STTT, standard two-tier testing; MTTT, modified two-tier testing; Enz1, Enzygnost-1; Enz2, Enzygnost-2; Lia, Liaison; C6, C6-ELISA; RecomL, RecomLine; EM, erythema migrans; PopC, population control; CRC, cross-reactive control; strict, counting equivocal EIA results as negative; permissive, counting equivocal EIA results as positive