Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 10, Number 5—May 2004
Research

Laboratory Diagnosis of SARS

Paul K.S. Chan*Comments to Author , Wing-Kin To†, King-Cheung Ng*, Rebecca K. Y. Lam*, Tak-Keung Ng†, Rickjason C. W. Chan*Comments to Author , Alan Wu*, Wai-Cho Yu†, Nelson Lee*, David S. C. Hui*, Sik-To Lai†, Ellis K. L. Hon*, Chi-Kong Li*, Joseph J. Y. Sung*, and John S. Tam*
Author affiliations: *The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong SAR, China; †Princess Margaret Hospital, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China

Main Article

Table 3

Comparison on positive rates of RT-PCR and virus isolationa

Specimen type (no.) No. (%) of specimens tested positiveb
Isolation/RT-PCR indexc
RT-PCR Virus isolation
Pooled throat and nasal swab (30)
8 (26.7)
4 (13.3)
0.50
Tracheal aspirate (13)
6 (46.2)
2 (15.4)
0.33
Nasopharyngeal aspirate (183)
52 (28.4)
14 (7.7)
0.27
Throat swab (58)
11 (19.0)
2 (3.4)
0.18
Nasal swab (56)
14 (25.0)
2 (3.6)
0.14
Urine (296)
14 (4.7)
2 (0.7)
0.14
Throat washing (218)
17 (7.8)
1 (0.5)
0.06
Stool (262)
70 (26.7)
2 (0.8)
0.03
Rectal swab (56) 12 (21.4) 0 (0) 0

aRT-PCR, reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction.
bOnly specimens tested by both RT-PCR and virus isolation are included.
cNo. of isolation-positive specimens per RT-PCR-positive specimen.

Main Article

Page created: February 22, 2011
Page updated: February 22, 2011
Page reviewed: February 22, 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.
file_external