Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20822551›Full record

ArticleAnnals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials2010

Prevalence of Chlamydia infection among women visiting a gynaecology outpatient department: evaluation of an in-house PCR assay for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis.

Achchhe L Patel, Divya Sachdev, Poonam Nagpal, Uma Chaudhry, Subash C Sonkar, Suman L Mendiratta, Daman Saluja

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Genital Chlamydia trachomatis: an update.The Indian journal of medical research · 2013
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Prevalence of cases ofReproductive medicine and biology · 2012
    Article
  19. Prevalence ofInfectious diseases in obstetrics and gynecology
    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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Achchhe L PatelDr. B. R. Ambedkar Center for Biomedical Research, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007, India.
Divya Sachdev
Poonam Nagpal
Uma Chaudhry
Subash C Sonkar
Suman L Mendiratta
Daman Saluja
Ambedkar University Delhi · INUniversity of Delhi · INHindu Rao Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScreening women for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in developing countries is highly desirable because of asymptomatic infection. The existing diagnostic methods in developing countries are not effective and their sensitivity fall below 45.0% which leads to further spread of infection. There is an urgent need for improved and cost effective diagnostic tests that will reduce the burden of sexually transmitted infections in the developing world.

methodsPrevalence of C. trachomatis infection among women visiting gynaecology department of Hindu Rao hospital in Delhi, India was determined using Roche Amplicor Multi Well Plate kit (MWP) as well as using in-house PCR assay. We used 593 endocervical swabs for clinical evaluation of the in-house developed assay against Direct Fluorescence Assay (DFA; Group I n = 274) and Roche Amplicor MWP kit (Group II, n = 319 samples) and determined the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) of the in-house developed assay.

resultsWe detected 23.0% positive cases and there was a higher representation of women aged 18-33 in this group. An in-house PCR assay was developed and evaluated by targeting unique sequence within the gyrA gene of C. trachomatis. Specificity of the reaction was confirmed by using genomic DNA of human and other STI related microorganisms as template. Assay is highly sensitive and can detect as low as 10 fg of C. trachomatis DNA. The resolved sensitivity of in-house PCR was 94.5% compared with 88.0% of DFA assay. The high specificity (98.4%) and sensitivity (97.1%) of the in-house assay against Roche kit and availability of test results within 3 hours allowed for immediate treatment and reduced the risk of potential onward transmission.

conclusionsThe in-house PCR method is cost effective (~ 20.0% of Roche assay) and hence could be a better alternative for routine diagnosis of genital infection by C. trachomatis to facilitate improved screening and treatment management.

Indexed as

Outpatient Clinics, HospitalAdultChlamydia InfectionsChlamydia trachomatisDeveloping CountriesDNA, BacterialFemaleGenital Diseases, FemaleHumansIndiaIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceMaleMiddle AgedPolymerase Chain ReactionPredictive Value of TestsPregnancyDNA, BacterialReagent Kits, Diagnostic

Identifiers

PMID20822551
PMCPMC2944303
OpenAlexW2144029111

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.