ReviewEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2009
Reproducibility and specificity concerns associated with nucleic acid amplification tests for detecting Chlamydia trachomatis.
Review in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pelvic inflammatory disease risk following negative results from chlamydia nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) versus non-NAATs in Denmark: A retrospective cohort.PLoS medicine · 2018Article
- Chlamydia trachomatis test-of-cure cannot be based on a single highly sensitive laboratory test taken at least 3 weeks after treatment.PloS one · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Commercial nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) have become one of the most frequently used tests for detecting Chalmydia trachomatis. However, published studies have raised important concerns regarding the NAAT evaluation process in general and their reproducibility and clinical specificity in particular. This is because for many infectious diseases including chlamydia, a true gold standard simply does not exist and, as a result, estimation of test performance parameters in the absence of a gold standard is a difficult and challenging task. In this manuscript, we will attempt to address some issues pertaining to the evaluation of NAATs including NAAT reproducibility, test validity, and the manner in which positive NAAT results are confirmed. Finally, we will discuss some of the potential clinical and public health implications of testing by NAATs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
18642036What 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.