Table 3.

Results of N–1 chi-squared tests to analyze differences in the proportional data resulting from the two diagnostic tests included in the study, quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). CI, confidence interval; df, degrees of freedom; * denotes statistically significant differences in proportions with α = 0.05; ^a Green turtles, loggerheads, and both species combined were more likely to test positive for ChHV5 via ELISA than via qPCR; ^b Loggerheads were more likely than green turtles to test positive for ChHV5 via ELISA; ^c Loggerheads were more likely than green turtles to test positive for ChHV5 via both assays combined.

	Percent Difference (%)	95% CI	χ2	df	p
Tested positive for ChHV5 via qPCR versus ELISA
Green turtles a	21.1	8.8–37.6%	17.4	1	<0.001 *
Loggerheads a	68.4	55.1–78.2%	109.0	1	<0.001 *
Both species a	51.1	40.6–60.9%	139.6	1	<0.001 *
qPCR results for free-ranging versus rehabilitating turtles
Green turtles	5.1	–11.2–9.8%	1.1	1	0.30
Loggerheads	7.4	–5.9–13.0%	2.0	1	0.15
Both species	6.2	–1.9–9.5%	3.0	1	0.08
Tested positive for ChHV5 via qPCR upon entry into rehabilitation versus established patients
Green turtles	8.7	–1.0–16.2%	3.7	1	0.06
Loggerheads	12.9	–1.9–35.6%	2.7	1	0.10
Both species	1.7	–8.3–8.2%	0.2	1	0.68
Tested positive for ChHV5 via ELISA upon entry into rehabilitation versus established patients
Green turtles	6.7	–3.7–29.9%	2.7	1	0.10
Loggerheads	3.3	–19.9–30.4%	0.1	1	0.80
Both species	6.9	–16.5–28.8%	0.3	1	0.58
Green turtles versus loggerheads that tested positive for ChHV5 via qPCR	1.6	–3.4–6.9%	0.4	1	0.52
Green turtles versus loggerheads that tested positive for ChHV5 via ELISA b	48.9	28.4–63.8%	21.1	1	<0.001 *
Green turtles versus loggerheads that tested positive for ChHV5 via both assays c	21.8	13.3–30.1%	24.8	1	<0.001 *