Table 1 Diagnostic performance of qualitative vs quantitative HCV RNA NAT in five studies included in 2017 systematic review
From: The future of viral hepatitis testing: innovations in testing technologies and approaches
Author, year and country | Sample type & number | Study population | Diagnostic test (Quantitative) | Reference test (Qualitative) | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lee et al., 2000, USA [9] | Serum N = 51 | Patients at risk of HCV infection | Roche AMPLICOR HCV test, version 2.0 | Roche COBAS AMPLICOR TM HCV Test v2.0 | 100% at 50 IU/mL; 91% at 25 IU/mL* | |
Yu et al., 2000, Taiwan [10] | Serum N = 215 | Patients with chronic HCV | Bayer bDNA-2 Quantiplex HCV test | Roche COBAS AMPLICOR TM HCV Test v2.0 | 95% | – |
Sabato et al., 2007, USA [11] | Plasma N = 76 | Patients with HCV infection | Bayer Versant HCV genotype assay | Roche COBAS AMPLICOR TM HCV Test v1.0 | 100% | 100% |
Vermehren et al., 2008, Germany [12] | Serum N = 65 | Patients with HCV | Bayer Versant HCV genotype assay | Abbott Real-Time Assay | 87% | – |