Skip to main content

Table 1 SARS-CoV-2 analysis methods used at the Emergency department

From: A retrospective cohort study of the effect of SARS-CoV-2 point of care rapid RT-PCR at the Emergency Department on targeted admission

 

Period 1 (N = 781)

Period 2 (N = 988)

Period 3 (N = 1171)

Total (N = 2940)

n = 

% (95% CI)

n = 

% (95% CI)

n = 

% (95% CI)

n = 

% (95% CI)

Analysis method

 RT-PCR

443

56.7 (53.2–60.2)

298

30.2 (27.4–33.1)

111

9.5 (7.9–11.3)

852

29.0 (27.4–30.6)

 RAD test

1

0.1 (0.007–0.7)

506

51.2 (48.1–54.3)

395

33.7 (31.1–36.5)

902

30.7 (29.0–32.4)

 VitaPCR

0

0.0 (0.0–0.5)

4

0.4 (0.2–1.0)

435

37.1 (34.4–40.0)

439

14.9 (13.7–16.3)

 Total

444

56.9 (53.4–60.3)

650

65.8 (62.8–68.7)

772

65.9 (63.2–68.6)

1866

63.5 (61.7–65.2)

Participants tested with multiple methods

 Antigen and RT-PCR

0

0.0 (0.0–0.5)

152

15.4 (13.3–17.8)

34

2.9 (2.1–4.0)

186

6.3 (5.5–7.3)

 Antigen and Vita-PCR

0

0.0 (0.0–0.5)

0

0.0 (0.0–0.4)

75

6.4 (5.1–8.0)

75

2.6 (2.0–3.2)

 VitaPCR and RT-PCR

0

0.0 (0.0–0.5)

2

0.2 (0.04–0.7)

44

3.8 (2.8–5.0)

46

1.6 (1.2–2.1)

 RAD, VitaPCR and RT-PCR

0

0.0 (0.0–0.5)

2

0.2 (0.04–0.7)

9

0.8 (0.4–1.5)

11

0.4 (0.2–0.7)

  1. The use of Real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) at the core laboratory decreased significantly between each study period as the point of care rapid antigen detection (RAD) test and point of care rapid RT-PCR VitaPCR were introduced in Period 2 and 3 respectively. Number of tests are presented with percentages (%) of total participants in each period and 95% confidence intervals (CI)