Table 3. Sensitivity and specificity of ETEC RLDT compared to culture.
| ETEC culture (as the gold standard) vs RLDT | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total samples screened | Samples positive by RLDT (%) | Samples positive by culture (%) | False positive | False negative | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | |
| ETEC Study 1(Surveillance in Bangladesh) culture followed by PCR vs RLDT | |||||||
| ETEC Total | 230 | 58 (25.2) | 25 (10.9) | 34 | 1 | 96 | 83.4 |
| LT | 230 | 34 (14.8) | 9 (3.9) | 26 | 1 | 88.9 | 88.2 |
| STh | 230 | 40 (17.4) | 19 (8.3) | 22 | 1 | 94.7 | 89.6 |
| STp | 230 | 14 (6.1) | 7 (3) | 9 | 2 | 71.4 | 96 |
| ETEC study 2 (overall travelers) culture followed by ELISA vs RLDT | |||||||
| ETEC Total | 106 | 40 (37.7) | 45 (42.5) | 3 | 8 | 82.2 | 95.1 |
| LT | 106 | 23 (21.7) | 21 (19.8) | 6 | 4 | 81 | 92.9 |
| ST | 106 | 36 (34) | 37 (34.9) | 6 | 7 | 81.1 | 91.3 |
| ETEC study 2 (travelers with MSD only) | |||||||
| ETEC Total | 39 | 25 (64.1) | 28 (71.8) | 0 | 3 | 89.3 | 100 |
| LT | 39 | 17 (43.6) | 14 (35.9) | 4 | 1 | 92.9 | 84 |
| ST | 39 | 22 (56.4) | 23 (59) | 1 | 2 | 91.3 | 93.8 |
| ETEC study 2 (Asymptomatic travelers) | |||||||
| ETEC Total | 67 | 15 (22.4) | 17 (25.4) | 3 | 5 | 70.6 | 94 |
| LT | 67 | 6 (9) | 7 (10.4) | 2 | 3 | 57.1 | 96.7 |
| ST | 67 | 14 (20.9) | 14 (20.9) | 5 | 5 | 64.3 | 90.6 |