Volume 10, Number 2—February 2004
THEME ISSUE
2004 SARS Edition
Laboratory Study
Serologic and Molecular Biologic Methods for SARS-associated Coronavirus Infection, Taiwan
Ho-Sheng Wu*, Shu-Chun Chiu*, Tsan-Chang Tseng*, Szu-Fong Lin*, Jih-Hui Lin*, Yu-Fen Hsu*, Mei-Ching Wang*, Tsuey-Li Lin*, Wen-Zieh Yang*, Tian-Lin Ferng*, Kai-Hung Huang*, Li-Ching Hsu*, Li-Li Lee*, Jyh-Yuan Yang*, Hour-Young Chen*, Shun-Pi Su*, Shih-Yan Yang*, Ting-Hsiang Lin*, and Ih-Jen Su*
Table 2
Specificity, sensitivity, positive and negative predictive values of the tests evaluated for the serodiagnosis of SARS, in comparison to the neutralization testa,b
| Neutralization test |
Performances of methods evaluated |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Results | Number | Positive | Negative | Sensitivity | PPV | Specificity | NPV |
| ELISA |
Positive |
223 |
220 |
3 |
98.2% |
98.7% |
98.7% |
98.4% |
| Negative |
246 |
4 |
242 |
|||||
| IFA |
Positive |
252 |
222 |
30 |
99.1% |
88.1% |
87.8% |
99.1% |
| Negative |
217 |
2 |
215 |
|||||
| ICTc | Positive |
46 |
44 |
2 |
33.6% | 95.7% | 98.2% | 56.1% |
| Negative | 198 | 87 | 111 | |||||
Page created: January 26, 2011
Page updated: January 26, 2011
Page reviewed: January 26, 2011
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.