Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18322062›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2008

Evaluation of CDC-recommended approaches for confirmatory testing of positive Neisseria gonorrhoeae nucleic acid amplification test results.

Jeanne Moncada, Elizabeth Donegan, Julius Schachter

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02870101 (Performance of Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for the Detection of Neisseria Gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia Trachomatis in Extragenital Sites), which is not on this map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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.

NCT02870101 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Performance of Nucleic Acid Amplification Tests for the Detection of Neisseria Gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia Trachomatis in Extragenital Sites

TypeinterventionalSponsorDuke UniversityRan2017 to 2018Enrolled2,767ConditionsNeisseria Gonorrhoeae Infection, Chlamydia Trachomatis Infection, Sexually Transmitted InfectionsArmsNucleic acid amplification test 1 for NG and CT, Nucleic acid amplification test 2 for NG and CT, Nucleic acid amplification test 3 for NG and CT
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Serologic correlation of a research-use-onlyJournal of clinical microbiology · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jeanne MoncadaDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California 94110, USA. Jeanne.Moncada@ucsf.edu
Elizabeth Donegan
Julius Schachter
University of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We evaluated three of the CDC approaches for confirming Neisseria gonorrhoeae (gonococcus [GC])-positive nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) results: (i) repeating the original test on the original specimen, (ii) testing the original specimen with a different test, and (iii) performing a different test on a duplicate specimen collected at the same visit. For the first approach, clinical specimens were initially tested by Aptima Combo 2 (AC2) (Gen-Probe Inc., San Diego, CA), ProbeTec (strand displacement amplification [SDA]) (Becton Dickinson Co., Sparks, MD), and Amplicor (PCR) (Roche Molecular Systems, Branchburg, NJ). The original GC-positive specimens were then retested by the same NAAT for confirmation. For the second approach, specimens initially positive by AC2, SDA, or PCR were retested by different NAATs (SDA, PCR, AC2, and Aptima Neisseria gonorrhoeae assay [AGC]; Gen-Probe Inc.). For the third approach, duplicate urethral swabs and first-catch urine (FCU) samples from men and duplicate cervical swabs and FCU samples from women were each tested by SDA, AC2, and AGC in parallel. We found that 89 to 96% of samples positive by SDA, PCR, and AC2 were confirmed by repeat testing and that 85 to 98% of SDA, PCR, and AC2 results were confirmed by using different NAATs on the original specimen. For FCU samples from men, any NAAT can be used for confirmation. However, for all other specimen types, some NAATs cannot be used to confirm positive results from other NAATs. Thus, a single repeat test appears to be a reliable method for confirmation, but by doing more extensive testing, an additional 5% were confirmed. With >90% of all GC-positive NAATs being confirmed, our results show that confirmatory testing is not warranted for these genital specimens.

Indexed as

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.FemaleGonorrheaGuidelines as TopicHumansMaleMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesNeisseria gonorrhoeaeSensitivity and SpecificityUnited StatesUrethraUrine

Identifiers

PMID18322062
PMCPMC2395091
OpenAlexW2166694634

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.