A Cochrane Review of the diagnostic test accuracy of RDTs concluded that both tests were highly sensitive (having few false negative results) and highly specific (having few false positive results); HRP-2: sensitivity = 95.0%, specificity = 95.2%; pLDH: sensitivity = 93.2%, specificity = 98.5% (Abba 2011).
J. C. Penney had one of the few negative September results, with same-store sales down 0.6 percent.
Just to mention a few: false negative results may for instance be obtained if the specificity of the primers is too high, e.g. many infections by T. vivax are not recognized by existing primers, which do not recognize all types of the species.
It is, therefore, important to bear in mind that, in this context, a positive test requires further confirmation, while a negative test is more likely to be correct because, with a highly sensitive test, there are few false negative results, as seen in table 2. Indeed, if a test is 100% sensitive, there will be no false negatives, so a negative test will always be a true negative.
However, unlike TST, QFT-G yielded fewer false negative results even in individuals with low CD4 count.
In the present study, the QIAcube system showed the fewest false negative results and the best concordance rate, and it may be more suitable for detecting various viruses, including RNA and DNA virus strains.
For the nucleic acids recovered from nasopharyngeal swab specimens, the QIAcube system showed the fewest false negative results and the best concordance rate, and it may be more suitable for detecting various viruses including RNA and DNA virus strains.
According to the literature, for screening to be accurate, a good screening test must have high sensitivity (few false-negative results) and a high specificity (few false-positive results) [ 34] and even very good tests have poor positive predictive value when applied to low-prevalence populations [ 35].
