Yeah, can someone check Sam and my count? I also got 93.
The subjects in Tables 1 and 2 seem to be the same as those in Table 3 by my spot-checking. I did not check every patient ID number though -- is the remaining 8 from this?
Also, the 75% figure I do not find in the text other than the abstract. If a number is in the abstract, it should also be in the text. Using Table 3, I counted the numbers of people with a positive cDNA PCR test (73) and added to the people with a negative cDNA PCR test but a positive other test (7) ----- with this, I got 80 with a positive test. 80/93 = 86%, not 75%.
Finally, people are right to be confused about the percentages. Back at the CFSAC meeting, they gave out some of this data and from my notes,
there were 33 people negative for PCR but many were positive by some other test. Adding this to the 67 positive PCRs, the number given out was that 99/101= 98% patients tested positive by at least one test. So this is different from the 75% given now as well.
[In addition, the 95% figure was thrown out in relation to antibody testing a few months ago.]
AAARRRRGGHHHHHH....................................someone check the numbers and my logic -- either it's my brain or this paper doesn't make things as clear as they could be.
It's waaaaaay over my head, but I do think these kind of changing percentages doesn't help the WPI. It may not hurt them in the long run, but they need to be consistent...don't they?