Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20349260›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2010

Comparison of five commercial serological tests for the detection of anti-Chlamydia trachomatis antibodies.

D Baud, L Regan, G Greub

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. UnveilingiScience · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Trends inSexually transmitted infections · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Screening ofMicroorganisms · 2020
    Article
  7. Seroprevalence of some viral and bacterial zoonoses in domestic ruminants in Medina.Journal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Antibodies toLupus science & medicine · 2018
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Prevalence and diagnostic significance of specific IgA and anti-heat shock protein 60 Chlamydia trachomatis antibodies in subfertile women.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2014
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

D BaudCenter for Research on Intracellular Bacteria (CRIB), Institute of Microbiology, Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Bugnon 48, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
L Regan
G Greub
University of Lausanne · CHImperial College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis-specific antibodies is valuable in investigating recurrent miscarriage, tubal infertility and extrauterine pregnancy. We compared here the performance of immunofluorescence (IF) to four other commercial tests in detecting IgG antibodies directed against C. trachomatis: two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) using the major outer membrane protein (MOMP) as the antigen, commercialised respectively by Medac and R-Biopharm (RB), one ELISA using the chlamydial heat shock protein 60 (cHSP60) as the antigen (Medac), as well as a new automated epifluorescence immunoassay (InoDiag). A total of 405 patients with (n = 251) and without (n = 154) miscarriages were tested by all five tests. The prevalence of C. trachomatis-specific IgG antibodies as determined by the IF, cHSP60-Medac, MOMP-Medac, MOMP-RB and InoDiag was 14.3, 23.2, 14.3, 11.9 and 26.2%, respectively. InoDiag exhibited the highest sensitivity, whereas MOMP-RB showed the best specificity. Cross-reactivity was observed with C. pneumoniae using IF, MOMP-RB and InoDiag, and Parachlamydia acanthamoebae using the cHSP60 ELISA test. No cross-reactivity was observed between C. trachomatis and the other Chlamydiales (Neochlamydia hartmannellae, Waddlia chondrophila and Simkania negevensis). Given its high sensitivity, the new automated epifluorescence immunoassay from InoDiag represents an interesting alternative. The MOMP-based ELISA of R-Biopharm should be preferred for large serological studies, given the high throughput of ELISA and its excellent specificity.

Indexed as

Antibodies, BacterialAntigens, BacterialAutomationBacterial ProteinsChlamydia InfectionsChlamydialesChlamydia trachomatisChlamydophila pneumoniaeCross ReactionsFemaleHumansImmunoglobulin GPregnancyReagent Kits, DiagnosticSensitivity and SpecificitySerologic TestsAntibodies, BacterialAntigens, BacterialBacterial ProteinsImmunoglobulin GReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID20349260
OpenAlexW2039420513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.