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