ReviewDer Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete2007
[Modern diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis infections].
Review in Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete, 2007. 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.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chlamydia trachomatis is the most frequent sexually transmitted bacterial infection. Tests to diagnose C. trachomatis infections include growth on cell culture and assays detecting bacterial antigens or nucleic acids. Until recently, culture was considered the gold standard of testing because of its high specificity. However, the sensitivity of culture is limited. Nucleic acid amplification tests (NATs) have the highest sensitivity and are almost as specific as culture. They are best suited for screening. Chlamydial antigen EIAs are considerably less sensitive and specific, resulting in low positive predictive values, especially when low-prevalence populations are studied. Thus, positive results of chlamydia antigen EIAs should be confirmed by another test.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17180355What 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.