Skip to main content

Table 5 Comparison of EHV-1 LAMP assays utilizing rapidly processed swabs 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

EHV-1 rtLAMP

EHV-1 qPCR

 

Positive

Negative

Total

Positive

2

0

2

Negative

2

30

32

Total

4

30

34

Kappa (0.95 CI; p(Kappa))

0.638 (0.185–1.09; 0.000)

McNemar’s Chi square (p(Chi sq))

0.500 (0.479)

Overall agreement b

94.12% (66.67% PA; 96.77% NA)

EHV-1 cLAMP#

EHV-1 qPCR

 

Positive

Negative

Total

Positive

2

1

3

Negative

2

27

29

Total

4

28

32

Kappa (0.95 CI; p(Kappa))

0.520 (0.047–0.993; 0.0014)

McNemar’s Chi square (p(Chi sq))

0.00 (1.00)

Overall agreement b

90.62% (57.14% PA; 94.47% NA)

EHV-1 sgLAMP

EHV-1 qPCR

 

Positive

Negative

Total

Positive

2

2

4

Negative

2

28

30

Total

4

30

34

Kappa (0.95 CI; p(Kappa))

0.433 (−0.029–0.896; 0.006)

McNemar’s Chi square (p(Chi sq))

0.250 (0.617)

Overall agreement b

88.24% (50.00% PA; 93.33% 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