Table 1.
Methods evaluated during the interlaboratory test performance study.
Table 2.
Samples used to evaluate analytical specificity.
Table 3.
Samples used to evaluate analytical sensitivity, repeatability and reproducibility.
Table 4.
Comparison of the performance criteria obtained during the collaborative study for the different methods (first stage of evaluation).
Fig 1.
Probability of detection curves of the different methods evaluated for the detection of “Flavescence dorée” phytoplasma in plant samples.
Table 5.
Results of analytical sensitivity (ASE), repeatability (DA), reproducibility (CO) and concordance odds ratio (COR) obtained during the collaborative study for the different methods.
Table 6.
Detailed results for repeatability (DA), reproducibility (CO) and concordance odds ratio (COR) obtained during the collaborative study for the different methods.
Table 7.
Statistical summary for the POD model applied to the different methods evaluated during the test performance study.
Table 8.
Comparison of likelihood ratios obtained during the collaborative study for the different methods.
Fig 2.
Relationship between pre- and post-test probabilities of “Flavescence dorée” phytoplasma infection, according to the results obtained during the interlaboratory test performance study for each evaluated method and for the combination of both methods M5 and M6.
Fig 3.
Diagram summarizing the performance of the different methods evaluated in the interlaboratory test performance study.