ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2009
Performance of three nucleic acid amplification tests for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae by use of self-collected vaginal swabs obtained via an Internet-based screening program.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01234103 (Preventing Health Damaging Behaviors in Male and Female Army Recruits), which is not on this map. Cited by 44 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Preventing Health Damaging Behaviors in Male and Female Army Recruits
Who cites it
44 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 113 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2021Guideline
- Home-based versus clinic-based specimen collection in the management of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae infections.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2015.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2015Guideline
- Self-Collected versus Clinician-Collected Sampling for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Screening: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Home-based chlamydia and gonorrhoea screening: a systematic review of strategies and outcomes.BMC public health · 2013Pooled it
- Rationale and design of REACT: a randomised controlled trial assessing the effectiveness of home-collection to increase chlamydia retesting and detect repeat positive tests.BMC infectious diseases · 2014Trial
- Diagnostic characteristics of tests for ocular Chlamydia after mass azithromycin distributions.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2012Trial
- A low-cost point-of-care device for the simultaneous detection of two sexually transmitted bacterial pathogens in vaginal swab samples.The Analyst · 2025Article
- Combination of Individual Tests to Improve Diagnostic Accuracy inMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Increasing Access To Sexually Transmitted Infection Testing: The Promise of Point-of-Care and Over-the-Counter Tests.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2025Review
- [Screening for sexually transmitted infections in asymptomatic non-pregnant people in the most vulnerable populations: a quick scoping reviewDetección sistemática de infecciones de transmisión sexual en personas no embarazadas asintomáticas pertenecientes a grupos de población vulnerables: una revisión de alcance rápida].Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2025Article
- Multi-repeat sequences identification using genome mining techniques for developing highly sensitive molecular diagnostic assay for the detection ofOpen research Africa · 2024Article
- Review
- A practical approach to the diagnosis and management of chlamydia and gonorrhea.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2023Review
- [Effectiveness of the vagino-rectal exudate self-sampling for prenatal screening of Streptococcus agalactiae infection. GALL study].Atencion primaria · 2022Article
- A pilot clinical validation study of a self-collected vaginal swab device for the detection ofFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Using Innovation to Address Adolescent and Young Adult Health Disparities in Pelvic Inflammatory Disease: Design of the Technology Enhanced Community Health Precision Nursing (TECH-PN) Trial.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Internet-based self-sampling forSexually transmitted infections · 2020Article
- Detection of Three Sexually Transmitted Infections by Anatomic Site: Evidence From an Internet-Based Screening Program.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2020Article
- Relationship between Chlamydia Trachomatis Infection with Patency Tubal and Non-Patency Tubal Occurrence in Infertile Women.Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Use of self-obtained vaginal specimens processed by nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) has significantly increased the utilization of nontraditional locations for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae screening programs. One important emerging source of such venues includes home-based self-sampling kits available via the Internet. The objective of our study was to evaluate the performance of three commercially available NAATs (Becton-Dickinson ProbeTec SDA, Gen-Probe Aptima Combo2 TMA, and Roche Amplicor PCR) for detection of C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae in vaginal samples obtained via an Internet-based screening program. From July 2004 to August 2005, 500 self-collected vaginal swabs were tested for C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae by using all three NAATs. Another 500 samples were collected between August 2005 and November 2007 and tested by ProbeTec and Combo2; PCR testing was discontinued due to low specificity for N. gonorrhoeae. All tests were conducted according to the manufacturers' procedures; the "gold standard" for an infected C. trachomatis or N. gonorrhoeae patient was defined as > or = 2 positive NAAT results. Of the first 500 swabs submitted, 46 were C. trachomatis infected (9.2%) and 5 were N. gonorrhoeae infected (1.0%), and 3 of these were coinfected (0.6%). All C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae Combo2-positive/ProbeTec-negative samples were confirmed as true positives by an alternative NAAT. For C. trachomatis, ProbeTec, Combo2, and PCR had sensitivities of 82.6%, 100%, and 100%, with specificities of 100%, 100%, and 99.3%, respectively. For N. gonorrhoeae, ProbeTec, Combo2, and PCR had sensitivities of 80%, 100%, and 100%, with specificities of 100%, 100%, and 98.8%, respectively. Of the total 1,000 swabs submitted, 92 were C. trachomatis infected (9.2%) and 15 were N. gonorrhoeae infected (1.5%), and 7 of these were coinfected (0.7%). There were no ProbeTec-positive/Combo2-negative samples. For C. trachomatis, ProbeTec and Combo2 had sensitivities of 81.5% and 100%, with specificities of 100% and 100%, respectively. For N. gonorrhoeae, ProbeTec and Combo2 had sensitivities of 80% and 100%, with specificities of 100% and 100%, respectively. Overall, ProbeTec had 17 C. trachomatis false-negative results (1.7%) and 3 N. gonorrhoeae false-negative results (0.3%), while Combo2 had none. Our results were consistent with the sensitivities and specificities stated by the manufacturers. NAATs perform well for detection of chlamydia and gonorrhea with self-obtained vaginal swabs shipped in a dry state to a laboratory. For 1,000 self-collected vaginal swabs tested by NAATs, the sensitivities for C. trachomatis and N. gonorrhoeae for Combo2 were 100% and 100%, while they were 81.5% and 80%, respectively, for ProbeTec. For 500 PCR samples, the C. trachomatis sensitivity was 100% and the N. gonorrhoeae sensitivity was 100%, with specificities of 99.3% and 98.8%, respectively.
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.