Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11474014›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2001

Evaluation of laboratory testing methods for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in the era of nucleic acid amplification.

T J Battle, M R Golden, K L Suchland, J M Counts, J P Hughes, W E Stamm, K K Holmes

Open access · greenAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Current Issues in Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis.Current infectious disease reports · 2003
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

T J BattleDivision of Infectious Diseases, Center for AIDS & STD, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.
M R Golden
K L Suchland
J M Counts
J P Hughes
W E Stamm
K K Holmes
AIDS United · USHoward University · USUniversity of Washington · USWashington State Department of Health · US

Funding

University of Washington STI-TM Cooperative Research CtrU19AI031448 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI HOLMES, KING K. · 1995 to 2010
$15.2M
STD/HIV RESEARCH TRAINING FOR MINORITY STUDENTST35AI007616 · NIAID · HOWARD UNIVERSITY · PI STUBBS, JOHN T · 1999 to 2008
$1.0M
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON STD COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTERU01AI031448 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI HOLMES, KING KENNARD · 1991 to 1994
–
NIAID NIH HHS AI07149NIAID NIH HHS AI31448NIAID NIH HHS T35 AI007616NIAID NIH HHS T35 AI 07616NIAID NIH HHS U19 AI031448
6 · The paper itself

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

Nucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesBacteriological TechniquesChlamydia InfectionsChlamydia trachomatisData CollectionHumansLaboratoriesSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID11474014
PMCPMC88261
OpenAlexW2041511193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.