ArticleClinical and diagnostic laboratory immunology2002
Inclusion fluorescent-antibody test as a screening assay for detection of antibodies to Chlamydia pneumoniae.
Article in Clinical and diagnostic laboratory immunology, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
A study was conducted to determine the ability of the inclusion immunofluorescence assay (inclusion IFA) to act as a screening test to detect samples with antibodies to Chlamydia pneumoniae; microimmunofluorescence (MIF) was used as the "gold standard." In addition, the inclusion IFA was compared using HEp-2 cells infected with either C. pneumoniae CM-1 or Chlamydia trachomatis serovar E. A total of 331 serum samples representing a range of MIF titers were evaluated. The sensitivities of the inclusion IFA for detecting samples with C. pneumoniae MIF titers of > or = 16 were 96.9 and 74.8% with C. pneumoniae- and C. trachomatis-infected cells, respectively. For samples with an elevated C. pneumoniae MIF titer of > or = 512, the sensitivities of the C. pneumoniae- and C. trachomatis-based inclusion IFA were 97.0 and 8.8%, respectively. These results suggest that the inclusion IFA is not a genus-specific test, as evidenced by the failure of the C. trachomatis-infected cells to detect a significant number of samples with C. pneumoniae antibodies. Samples that had elevated C. pneumoniae inclusion IFA and MIF titers but that were found negative (titer, <16) by the C. trachomatis inclusion IFA were further tested by an in vitro neutralization assay for functional antibodies that might not have been detected by the serological assays. The in vitro neutralization results corroborated the serological results in that all seven sera tested had a neutralization titer for C. pneumoniae (range, 20 to 225), while all but one failed to have any effect on the infectivity of C. trachomatis serovar E. While the C. pneumoniae inclusion IFA had a high sensitivity for detecting chlamydial antibodies, depending on whether it was used as a screening test for detecting samples with low (> or = 16) or elevated (> or = 512) MIF titers, its specificity ranged from 53.4 to 77.1%. In conclusion, the inclusion IFA with C. pneumoniae-infected cells was best suited as a sensitive screening test for identifying specimens with elevated MIF titers (those associated with a possible acute infection with C. pneumoniae).
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.