Table 1.
Demographic and clinical description of the 271 acute undifferentiated fever patients enrolled in the study.
Fig 1.
Performance comparison of different rapid diagnostic tests and ELISA.
A) Forest plot of the performance of the RDTs and ELISAs for NS1 and IgM, compared with the ZYDC-PCR based on this study. B) Forest plot of the performance of RDTs and ELISA for NS1 and IgM from studies performed in different countries based on the review from Haider et al. [45] and from Pal et al for the Peru ELISA NS1 Platelia [37]. Sensitivity and specificity estimates are plotted on the x-axis (0–100%), with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Tests are displayed along the y-axis.
Table 2.
Performance comparison of the ZYDC-PCR and ZDC-PCR with the reference PCR.
Fig 2.
Comparison of Cq values obtained with the ZYDC-multiplex PCR and ZDC-multiplex PCR relative to the reference PCR.
For each sample, Cq values obtained with the serotype-specific reference dengue PCR were compared to those obtained with the multiplex assays (ZYDC-PCR and ZDC-PCR). Bland-Altman plot showing the difference inCq values between the reference PCR and the ZYDC-multiplex PCR A) and the ZDC-multiplex PCR B) plotted against the mean Cq value. C) Violin plots showing the distribution of Cq value differences (multiplex PCR minus reference PCR) for the ZYDC-PCR and ZDC-PCR, stratified by dengue serotype (DENV1, DENV2, DENV3 and all DENV combined).
Table 3.
Inter-laboratory comparison.
Fig 3.
Comparison of the Cq value results of the ZYDC-PCR performed in Yurimaguas and Lima.
Cq values obtained with the ZYDC-PCR in Yurimaguas and Lima were compared using A) a Bland-Altman plot and B) a Violin plot, stratified by dengue serotype.
Table 4.
Comparison of Cq values across diagnostic PCR assays for discrepant samples.
Fig 4.
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves comparing the predictive performance of logistic regression models for dengue diagnosis.
The reference standard was the serotype specific dengue PCR. Model 1 included clinical symptoms only (rash, abdominal pain and hand arthralgia) (AUC = 0.65); model 2 added the ZYDC-PCR results (AUC = 0.97); model 3 included the SD Bioline NS1 results (AUC = 0.89); model 4 included the CTK NS1 results (AUC = 0.89); and model 5 the NS1 ELISA results (AUC = 0.85).