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