Volume 15, Number 3—March 2009
    
    Dispatch
Coordinated Implementation of Chikungunya Virus Reverse Transcription–PCR
Figure
![Probit analysis of laboratories with a positive result (y axes) for chikungunya virus in relation to viral RNA concentration in positive samples (x axes). A) Laboratories using in-house reverse transcription–PCRs (RT-PCRs) (n = 18) had a 50% certainty of having a positive result at 10,000 RNA copies/mL (95% confidence interval [CI] 3,162–19,952). B) Laboratories using a preformulated RT-PCR (n = 13) had a 50% certainty of having a positive result at 1,288 RNA copies/mL (95% CI 416–2,344). Data p](/eid/images/08-1104-F1.jpg)
Figure. Probit analysis of laboratories with a positive result (y axes) for chikungunya virus in relation to viral RNA concentration in positive samples (x axes). A) Laboratories using in-house reverse transcription–PCRs (RT-PCRs) (n = 18) had a 50% certainty of having a positive result at 10,000 RNA copies/mL (95% confidence interval [CI] 3,162–19,952). B) Laboratories using a preformulated RT-PCR (n = 13) had a 50% certainty of having a positive result at 1,288 RNA copies/mL (95% CI 416–2,344). Data points represent individual samples in the test panel. Thick line is the regression line calculated on the basis of a probit model (dose-response curve), and thin lines are 95% CIs. Data fit into the model with p<0.00001.
Page created: December 07, 2010
                            Page updated: December 07, 2010
                            Page reviewed: December 07, 2010
        
    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.
