Table 1.
Comparison of the developed RT-LAMP assays with commercial RT-PCR assays
| Types of virus | RT-PCR | RT-LAMP | Subtotal | Kappa | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| + | - | |||||
| Flu A | + | 101 (86.32%)a | 16 (13.68%)c | 117 | 0.881 | P < 0.001 |
| - | 6 (1.15%)b | 515 (98.85%)d | 521 | |||
| Subtotal | 107 | 531 | 638 | |||
| Flu B | + | 189 (91.30%)a | 18 (8.70%)c | 207 | 0.931 | P < 0.001 |
| - | 1 (0.23%)b | 430 (99.77%)d | 431 | |||
| Subtotal | 190 | 448 | 638 | |||
| RSV A | + | 2 (100%) a | 0 (0%) c | 2 | 1.000 | P < 0.001 |
| - | 0 (0%) b | 636 (100%) d | 636 | |||
| Subtotal | 2 | 636 | 638 | |||
| RSV B | + | 22 (100%)a | 0 (0%)c | 22 | 1.000 | P < 0.001 |
| - | 0 (0%)b | 616 (100%)d | 616 | |||
| Subtotal | 22 | 616 | 638 | |||
| HAdV | + | 27 (90.00%)a | 3 (10.00%)c | 30 | 0.945 | P < 0.001 |
| - | 0 (0%)b | 608 (100%)d | 608 | |||
| Subtotal | 27 | 611 | 638 | |||
| PIV-1 | + | 1 (100%)a | 0 (0%)c | 1 | 1.000 | P < 0.001 |
| - | 0 (0%)b | 637 (100%)d | 637 | |||
| Subtotal | 1 | 637 | 638 | |||
| PIV-3 | + | 5 (100%)a | 0 (0%)c | 5 | 1.000 | P < 0.001 |
| - | 0 (0%)b | 633 (100%)d | 633 | |||
| Subtotal | 5 | 633 | 638 | |||
| HRV | + | 87 (98.86%)a | 1 (1.14%)c | 88 | 0.993 | P < 0.001 |
| - | 0 (0%)b | 550 (100%)d | 550 | |||
| Subtotal | 87 | 551 | 638 | |||
Notes: athe rate of sensitivity or true positive rate, bfalse-positive rate, cfalse-negative rate, dthe rate of specificity or true negative rate