ArticleSexually transmitted infections2007
Confirming the Chlamydia trachomatis status of referred rectal specimens.
Article in Sexually transmitted infections, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Lymphogranuloma venereum proctocolitis: a silent endemic disease in men who have sex with men in industrialised countries.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2010Review
- The prevalence of lymphogranuloma venereum infection in men who have sex with men: results of a multicentre case finding study.Sexually transmitted infections · 2009Article
- Update on lymphogranuloma venereum in the United Kingdom.Sexually transmitted infections · 2007Article
- Focus on Chlamydia.Sexually transmitted infections · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the reliability of different laboratory methods for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis in rectal specimens
methods1782 rectal specimens confirmed as C trachomatis positive using a standard laboratory method, were forwarded to the Sexually Transmitted Bacteria Reference Laboratory (STBRL). All specimens were retested using a C trachomatis specific independent in-house real time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). If this test was negative, a second test (Artus Real-Art PCR Kit) was employed as a confirmation. A correlation between real time PCR results obtained at the reference centre (STBRL), and the method of C trachomatis detection used in the primary laboratory was undertaken.
resultsThe percentage of specimens that could be confirmed as positive, compared with primary method of detection was as follows: C trachomatis culture 87.5%, strand displacement assay (SDA: Becton Dickinson) 93.4%, Cobas Amplicor (Roche) 89.2%, Aptima Combo Two assay (Genprobe) 83.3%, and enzyme immunoassays (EIA) 35.4%.
conclusionsHigh rates of confirmation can be achieved using an independent real time PCR assay to examine rectal specimens which had initially tested C trachomatis positive using nucleic acid amplification tests and chlamydia tissue culture. This is not possible for specimens that had been screened using EIA tests, which reflects the low specificity of this test when used for rectal specimens. Laboratories currently using EIA based assays to test rectal specimens should review this approach.
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.