ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2001
Evaluation of laboratory testing methods for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in the era of nucleic acid amplification.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Simultaneous detection of eleven sexually transmitted agents using multiplexed PCR coupled with MALDI-TOF analysis.Infection and drug resistance · 2019Article
- Seropositivity of Chlamydia trachomatis among saudi pregnant women in makkah.Journal of family & community medicine · 2006Article
- Pilot study of COBAS PCR and ligase chain reaction for detection of rectal infections due to Chlamydia trachomatis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2003Article
- Novel fluorescent ligase detection reaction and flow cytometric analysis of SYT-SSX fusions in synovial sarcoma.The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD · 2003Article
- Current Issues in Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis.Current infectious disease reports · 2003Article
- Evaluation of the Digene Hybrid Capture II Assay with the Rapid Capture System for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2002Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Diagnostic tests presently available for Chlamydia trachomatis have widely varying performance characteristics. To assess evolving laboratory testing practices since the introduction of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT), we surveyed laboratories in Washington State about their testing practices in 1998 and compared our findings to a similar survey conducted in 1995. Laboratory directors of 61 (87%) of 70 laboratories performing chlamydial tests in 1998 returned a survey. Between 1995 and 1998, 36 laboratories discontinued chlamydial testing, and the total number of laboratories performing tests in the state decreased from 92 to 70, a 24% decline. Of the 36 laboratories that discontinued testing, 25 (69%) had previously used rapid tests. While no laboratory routinely used NAAT in 1995, ligase chain reaction (LCR) was used in 23% of laboratories in 1998 and accounted for 113,624 (36%) of the 318,133 tests performed that year. Among the remaining 204,509 tests performed in 1998, other tests employed included DNA probe (29%), enzyme immunoassay (20%), culture (12%), direct fluorescent antibody assays (3%), and rapid tests (<1%). The majority (65%) of tests performed in 1998 using technologies other than LCR or culture were done in laboratories that did more than 10,000 tests. Cost and loss of revenue to laboratories were the most frequently cited reasons for not adopting NAAT. We conclude that in Washington State, NAAT have been rapidly adopted in larger laboratories, but most patients are still tested with much less sensitive technologies. Financial constraints represent the major barrier to more widespread use of DNA amplification tests.
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.