Table 4. Sensitivity and specificity of ETEC and Shigella RLDT from the stool on filter paper compared to conventional PCR.
| RLDT from stool on filter paper compared with PCR as the gold standard | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Targets | Total samples screened | Samples positive by RLDT (%) | Samples positive by the gold PCR (%) | False positive | False negative | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) |
| ETEC CHIM study | |||||||
| ETEC Total Study 3 | 30 | 13 (43.3) | 7 (23.3) | 6 | 0 | 100 | 73.9 |
| LT | 30 | 13 (43.3) | 6 (20) | 7 | 0 | 100 | 70.8 |
| STh | 30 | 12 (40) | 6 (20) | 6 | 0 | 100 | 75 |
| STp | 30 | 13 (43.3) | 4 (13.3) | 9 | 0 | 100 | 65.4 |
| Hospital-based surveillance in India | |||||||
| Shigella Study 4 | 59 | 31 (52.54) | 28 (48) | 3 | 0 | 100 | 90.3 |