Correction to: Virol J (2021) 18:45 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-021-01516-0
Following publication of the original article [1], the author notified us that there is an error in Table 1, originated during typesetting. The correct Table 1 is given below.
Table 1.
BioFire versus qPCR and rapid test versus qPCR outcomes
| qPCR positive | qPCR negative | |
|---|---|---|
| BioFire (n = 351) | ||
| Positive | 98 | 14 |
| Negative | 38 | 201 |
| Rapid test (n = 299) | ||
| Positive | 15 | 1 |
| Negative | 161 | 122 |
Results for matched tests performed by BioFire and qPCR or rapid test and qPCR.
The publisher apologizes for any inconvenience.
The original article has been corrected.
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Reference
- 1.McIlwain, et al. Virol J. 2021;18:45. doi: 10.1186/s12985-021-01516-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]