ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2006
Vulvovaginal-swab or first-catch urine specimen to detect Chlamydia trachomatis in women in a community setting?
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. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vaginal Swab vs Urine for Detection ofAnnals of family medicinePooled it
- Assessment of best single sample for finding chlamydia in women with and without symptoms: a diagnostic test study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2012Trial
- Chlamydia trachomatis genotypes in a cross-sectional study of urogenital samples from remote Northern and Central Australia.BMJ open · 2016Article
- Assessment of self taken swabs versus clinician taken swab cultures for diagnosing gonorrhoea in women: single centre, diagnostic accuracy study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2012Article
- [Diagnosis and treatment of Chlamydia trachomatis infections].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2012Article
- Home versus clinic-based specimen collection for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae.Expert review of anti-infective therapy · 2011Review
- Real-time quantitative PCR to determine chlamydial load in men and women in a community setting.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2009Article
- Evaluation of self-collected glans and rectal swabs from men who have sex with men for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae by use of nucleic acid amplification tests.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2009Article
- Chlamydia trachomatis load at matched anatomic sites: implications for screening strategies.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Screening for chlamydia in women is widely recommended. We evaluated the performance of two nucleic acid amplification tests for detecting Chlamydia trachomatis in self-collected vulvovaginal-swab and first-catch urine specimens from women in a community setting and a strategy for optimizing the sensitivity of an amplified enzyme immunoassay on vulvovaginal-swab specimens. We tested 2,745 paired vulvovaginal-swab and urine specimens by PCR (Roche Cobas) or strand displacement amplification (SDA; Becton Dickinson). There were 146 women infected with chlamydia. The assays detected 97.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93.1 to 99.2%) of infected patients with vulvovaginal-swab specimens and 91.8% (86.1 to 95.7%) with urine specimens. We tested 2,749 vulvovaginal-swab specimens with both a nucleic acid amplification test and a polymer conjugate-enhanced enzyme immunoassay with negative-gray-zone testing. The relative sensitivities obtained after retesting specimens in the negative gray zone were 74.3% (95% CI, 62.8 to 83.8%) with PCR and 58.3% (95% CI, 46.1 to 69.8%) with SDA. In community settings, both vulvovaginal-swab and first-catch urine specimens from women are suitable substrates for nucleic acid amplification tests, but enzyme immunoassays, even after negative-gray-zone testing, should not be used in screening programs.
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.