Correction to: Virol J
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12985-018-1105-5
Anzeige
In the original publication of this article [1], Table 1 has some errors. The correct one is below:
Table 1
Comparison of VNT and PRNT assays for a panel of 142 samples
VNT | PRNT50 | PRNT90 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Positive (titre ≥10) | Negative (titre < 10) | Positive (titre ≥10) | Negative (titre < 10) | |
Positive (titre ≥40) | 51 | 1 | 51 | 1 |
Negative (titre < 40) | 9 | 81 | 1 | 89 |
Sensitivity of VNT (95% CI) | 85% (51/60) (72.9–92.4%) | 98.8% (51/52) (88.4–99.9%) | ||
Specificity of VNT (95% CI) | 98.7% (81/82) (92.4–99.9%) | 98.8% (89/90) (93.1–99.9%) | ||
The publisher apologizes to the readers and authors for the inconvenience.
The original publication has been corrected.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.