ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2005
External quality assessment for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of HTB-SiHa cells transfected with a recombinant plasmid for external quality assessment of Chlamydia trachomatis PCR.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2014Article
- Analysis of laboratory testing results collected in an enhanced chlamydia surveillance system in Australia, 2008-2010.BMC infectious diseases · 2014Article
- Clinic-based evaluation of a rapid point-of-care test for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in specimens from sex workers in Escuintla, Guatemala.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2009Article
- Quantitative real-time PCR is not more sensitive than "conventional" PCR.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2008Article
- Assessing proficiency of interpretation of rapid human immunodeficiency virus assays in nonlaboratory settings: ensuring quality of testing.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2008Article
- Prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis infection among low- and high-risk Filipino women and performance of Chlamydia rapid tests in resource-limited settings.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2007Article
- Testing specimens for Chlamydia trachomatis.Sexually transmitted infections · 2006Review
- The potential role of serology in diagnosing chronic lymphogranuloma venereum (LGV): a case of LGV mimicking Crohn's disease.Sexually transmitted infections · 2006Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of molecular methods for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis is increasing in clinical laboratories. External quality assessment enables unbiased monitoring of the performance of laboratories in the detection of specific pathogens. This study details the results of molecular and enzyme immunosorbent assay (EIA) testing for C. trachomatis detection in simulated endocervical swab specimens recently distributed internationally by United Kingdom National External Quality Assessment Scheme for Microbiology (UK NEQAS for Microbiology) external quality assessment panels. The frequency of accurate detection of C. trachomatis in the panels ranged from 32 to 100%. Participants using molecular methods were significantly more likely to detect C. trachomatis in specimens than those using an EIA. Two strains were distributed with the panels: an L2 laboratory-adapted strain and an uncharacterized primary isolate. Further analysis indicated a difference in detection of C. trachomatis between specific methods only with the L2 strain at lower concentrations. In addition, eight negative specimens were distributed, and false positives were found to be rare by all methods included in the study.
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.