Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2012 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Virol Methods. 2011 Jan 21;173(1):60–66. doi: 10.1016/j.jviromet.2011.01.007

Table 1. Overall performance of the RT-PCR/ESI-MS platform compared to conventional virology methods only for 190 subjects (2A) and to both clinical virology and secondary RT-PCR based methods combined (2B, N=194).

2A 2B
Clinical virology reference tests (N=188) Combined$ reference tests (N=194€)
Positive Negative Positive Negative
RT-PCR/ESI-MS RVSII Assay Positive 41 28* 62 15
Negative 5** 114 5 112
Total 46 142 67 127

Raw Sensitivity and specificity were 89.1% and 80.3% (95%C.I. 76.4-96.4, 72.7-86.5%, respectively). Sensitivity and specificity in secondary analysis were 92.5% and 88.2% (95% Confidence Interval: 83.4-97.5%, 81.2-93.2%, respectively). Samples from 190 subjects had one or more detection and sum to 195 total isolations.

$

Combined reference tests defined as combination of clinical virology reference tests and secondary RT-PCR based method

€

Excludes one Coronavirus detection with insufficient volume to send to the secondary PCR method

*

Excludes seven Coronavirus detections that were not confirmable with clinical virology reference tests

**

Included one coronavirus detection that was detected by virology reference test as adenovirus.