ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2007
Evaluation of Gen-Probe APTIMA-based Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis confirmatory testing in a metropolitan setting of high disease prevalence.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Expansion of Comprehensive Screening of Male Sexually Transmitted Infection Clinic Attendees with Mycoplasma genitalium and Trichomonas vaginalis Molecular Assessment: a Retrospective Analysis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2017Article
- Clinical Laboratory Assessment of Mycoplasma genitalium Transcription-Mediated Amplification Using Primary Female Urogenital Specimens.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2016Article
- Performance of the Cepheid CT/NG Xpert Rapid PCR Test for Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2013Article
- Performance of the cobas CT/NG test compared to the Aptima AC2 and Viper CTQ/GCQ assays for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2012Article
- Aptima Combo 2 testing detected additional cases of Neisseria gonorrhoeae infection in men and women in community settings.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2011Article
- Molecular Diagnosis of Sexually Transmitted Chlamydia trachomatis in the United States.ISRN obstetrics and gynecology · 2011Article
- Impact of Trichomonas vaginalis transcription-mediated amplification-based analyte-specific-reagent testing in a metropolitan setting of high sexually transmitted disease prevalence.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2008Article
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
Prompted by reports challenging the validity of the low-positive Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis results generated by the APTIMA Combo 2 assay (Gen-Probe, Incorporated) and by a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation to confirm N. gonorrhoeae- or C. trachomatis-positive screens by using an alternative amplification target, we report on a comparison of this means of confirmation with an in-house algorithm of repeat testing. Primary clinical specimens yielding N. gonorrhoeae- or C. trachomatis-specific luminescent values between 100,000 and 1,000,000 were repeat tested in duplicate. A subset of specimens was forwarded for confirmatory assays (Gen-Probe) individualized for alternative N. gonorrhoeae or C. trachomatis targets. An 18-month audit revealed that 230 of 29,977 C. trachomatis screens (0.8%) and 41 of 29,064 N. gonorrhoeae assays (0.1%) yielded low-positive data. When a subset of 40 low-positive N. gonorrhoeae screens was repeat tested, 20 (50.0%) remained positive; 22 (55.0%) of the screens remained positive following performance of the confirmatory assay. In contrast, repeat testing of 153 low-positive C. trachomatis screens yielded a positive result for fewer specimens (n = 97; 63.4%) than when commercial confirmatory testing was used (n = 124; 81.0%). However, confirmation of the results for additional C. trachomatis screens by use of an alternative target did not translate into significant differences in the calculated overall C. trachomatis-positive screen rates (7.39% by repeat testing versus 7.52% by the confirmatory assay; P = 0.53). Furthermore, use of the confirmatory assay raised the positive predictive value only 1.8% over that of repeat testing. Molecular confirmatory testing did not significantly enhance the reliability of C. trachomatis- or N. gonorrhoeae-specific nucleic acid amplification testing in this metropolitan setting compared to the reliability of repeat testing.
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.