Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22090407›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2012

Direct comparison of the traditional and reverse syphilis screening algorithms in a population with a low prevalence of syphilis.

Matthew J Binnicker, Deborah J Jespersen, Leonard O Rollins

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. The Traditional or Reverse Algorithm for Diagnosis of Syphilis: Pros and Cons.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Canadian Public Health Laboratory Network National Syphilis In-Laboratory Serological Testing Recommendations.Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. CDC Laboratory Recommendations for Syphilis Testing, United States, 2024.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2024
    Article
  12. Case-Control Study of Paresthesia Among World Trade Center-Exposed Community Members.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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.

Matthew J BinnickerDivision of Clinical Microbiology, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. binnicker.matthew@mayo.edu
Deborah J Jespersen
Leonard O Rollins

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We describe the first direct comparison of the reverse and traditional syphilis screening algorithms in a population with a low prevalence of syphilis. Among 1,000 patients tested, the results for 6 patients were falsely reactive by reverse screening, compared to none by traditional testing. However, reverse screening identified 2 patients with possible latent syphilis that were not detected by rapid plasma reagin (RPR).

Indexed as

AlgorithmsClinical Laboratory TechniquesDiagnostic ErrorsHumansMass ScreeningPrevalenceSensitivity and SpecificitySyphilis

Identifiers

PMID22090407
PMCPMC3256685

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.