Skip to main content

Table 3 Comparison of C. psittaci LAMP assays using rapidly processed samples to qPCR testing

From: Real-time fluorometric and end-point colorimetric isothermal assays for detection of equine pathogens C. psittaci and equine herpes virus 1: validation, comparison and application at the point of care

C. psittaci rtLAMP

C. psittaci qPCR

 

Positive

Negative

Total

Positive

6

0

6

Negative

0

30

30

Total

6

30

36

Kappa (0.95 CI; p(Kappa))

1 (1; 0.00)

McNemar’s Chi square (p(Chi sq))

Inf (0.000)

Overall agreement b

100%

C. psittaci cLAMP#

C. psittaci qPCR

 

Positive

Negative

Total

Positive

6

2

8

Negative

0

26

28

Total

6

28

34

Kappa (0.95 CI; p(Kappa))

0.821 (0.584–1.058; 0.00)

McNemar’s Chi square (p(Chi sq))

0.500 (0.479)

Overall agreement b

94.12% (85.71% PA; 96.30% NA)

C. psittaci sgLAMP

C. psittaci qPCR

 

Positive

Negative

Total

Positive

6

1

7

Negative

0

29

29

Total

6

30

36

Kappa (0.95 CI; p(Kappa))

0.906 (0.726–1.087; 0.00)

McNemar’s Chi square (p(Chi sq))

0.00 (1.00)

Overall agreement b

97.22% (92.31% PA; 98.31% NA)

  1. #: two samples were excluded from analyses as immediate discoloration of the mix (to yellow and/or orange) was observed upon addition the swab suspension; b: positive agreement (PA) and negative agreement (NA) are outlined in brackets
Back to article page

BMC Veterinary Research

ISSN: 1746-6148

Contact us