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)