ArticleSexually transmitted infections2000
Combined cervical swab and urine specimens for PCR diagnosis of genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection.
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Classical and Molecular Methods for Evaluation of Chlamydia trachomatis Infection in Women with Tubal Factor Infertility.Journal of reproduction & infertility · 2013Article
- Factors affecting vaginal pH levels among female adolescents attending genitourinary medicine clinics.Sexually transmitted infections · 2005Article
- Biological and hormonal markers of chlamydia, human papillomavirus, and bacterial vaginosis among adolescents attending genitourinary medicine clinics.Sexually transmitted infections · 2005Article
- Impact of patient characteristics on performance of nucleic acid amplification tests and DNA probe for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in women with genital infections.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2005Article
- Diagnosing genitourinary chlamydial infection. Vaginal swabs alone may not be sufficient.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2001Article
- Evaluation of a modified sanitary napkin as a sample self-collection device for the detection of genital chlamydial infection in women.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2001Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSampling of both the cervix and urine increases the chance of detection of Chlamydia trachomatis compared with sampling either site alone. We determined the effect of combining urine and cervical swab specimens in the clinic setting on the sensitivity of C trachomatis polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing.
methodsFor each of 100 women attending a genitourinary medicine clinic with high likelihood of genital C trachomatis infection, one endocervical swab was placed in transport medium and another in one of two aliquots of first void urine. Four PCR assays per patient (urine + swab, swab alone, and urine alone both pre- and post-freeze-thawing) were processed by automated C trachomatis PCR (Cobas, Amplicor). An inhibition control was included with each assay to identify specimens containing PCR inhibitors.
results71% of women were Amplicor C trachomatis PCR positive (according to the results of at least one specimen). PCR test results were concordant for 95/100 patients, and of the five discordant result sets there was only one major discrepancy. Inhibitors of PCR were present in 22/400 specimens from 20 patients, and 16/22 were cervical swabs (p < 0.001).
conclusionsCombining a cervical swab with a urine specimen is acceptable for PCR testing for genital C trachomatis infection, and has the potential to increase further the cost effectiveness of DNA based screening for C trachomatis genital infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.