Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16825373›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2006

Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis by nucleic acid amplification testing: our evaluation suggests that CDC-recommended approaches for confirmatory testing are ill-advised.

Julius Schachter, Joan M Chow, Holly Howard, Gail Bolan, Jeanne Moncada

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01849653 (Self-Obtained Vaginal Swabs for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Testing), which is not on this map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

NCT01849653 completednot on this mapstarted 2014, after this paper: background citation

Self-Obtained Vaginal Swabs for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Testing: Concurrence in Non-Clinical Settings vs. Clinical Settings

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of California, San FranciscoRan2014 to 2015Enrolled3,500ConditionsChlamydial Infection, Gonococcal Infection
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Recommendations for the laboratory-based detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae--2014.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2014
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Reproducibility and specificity concerns associated with nucleic acid amplification tests for detecting Chlamydia trachomatis.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2009
    Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Julius SchachterChlamydia Research Laboratory, Department of Laboratory Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, 1001 Potrero Avenue, Bldg. 30 Room 416, San Francisco, CA 94110, USA. Julius.Schachter@ucsf.edu
Joan M Chow
Holly Howard
Gail Bolan
Jeanne Moncada
California Health and Human Services Agency · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

PHS HHS H25/CCH904362-12-02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We evaluated three CDC-suggested approaches for confirming positive nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for Chlamydia trachomatis: (i) repeat the original test on the original specimen, (ii) retest the original specimen with a different test, and (iii) perform a different test on a duplicate specimen. For approach 1, specimens (genital swabs or first-catch urine [FCU]) initially positive by the Abbott LCx Probe System Chlamydia trachomatis Assay (LCx; Abbott Laboratories), the APTIMA Combo 2 Assay (AC2; Gen-Probe Inc.), the Amplicor CT/NG Assay (PCR; Roche Diagnostics Corp.), or the BD ProbeTec ET System C. trachomatis amplified-DNA assay (SDA; Becton Dickinson Diagnostic Systems) were retested by the same NAAT. In several evaluations, multiple efforts were made to confirm the original positive result. For approach 2, specimens initially positive by SDA and the Hybrid Capture 2 CT-ID DNA Test (HC2; Digene Corp.) were retested by different NAATs (SDA, PCR, AC2, and the APTIMA assay for C. trachomatis [ACT]). For approach 3, duplicate male urethral or cervical swabs were tested by SDA or by both AC2 and ACT. FCU specimens were tested by all three tests. We found that 84 to 98% of SDA, LCx, PCR, and AC2 positive results were confirmed by a repeat test and that 89 to 99% of SDA and AC2 and 93% of HC2 positive results were confirmed by different NAATs, but that some NAATs cannot be used to confirm other NAATs. The use of repeat testing did not confirm 11% of C. trachomatis SDA positive results that could be confirmed by more extensive testing. Doing more testing confirms more positive results; >90% of all positive NAATs could be confirmed.

Indexed as

Bacteriological TechniquesCervix UteriChlamydia InfectionsChlamydia trachomatisDNA, BacterialFemaleHumansMaleNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesPredictive Value of TestsReagent Kits, DiagnosticReproducibility of ResultsUrethraDNA, BacterialReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID16825373
PMCPMC1489520
OpenAlexW1967242199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.