ArticleObstetrics and gynecology international2014
Chlamydia trachomatis Antibody Testing in Vaginal Mucosal Material versus Blood Samples of Women Attending a Fertility Clinic and an STI Clinic.
Article in Obstetrics and gynecology international, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- UnveilingiScience · 2025Article
- Diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis genital infections in the era of genomic medicine.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2021Review
- Risk factors of tubal infertility in a tertiary hospital in a low-resource setting: a case-control study.Fertility research and practice · 2020Article
- Sero-epidemiological assessment of Chlamydia trachomatis infection and sub-fertility in Samoan women.BMC infectious diseases · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background. Chlamydia infections often follow an asymptomatic course but may damage the reproductive tract. Chlamydia antibodies in serum are used as markers for past infections and can relate to tubal pathology and infertility. This "proof of principle" study aimed to assess whether Chlamydia antibodies are detectable in easier to obtain, noninvasive, vaginal mucosa samples and relate to current or past infection. Methods. We compared outcomes of Chlamydia IgG and IgA antibody tests in serum and vaginal mucosal swabs in (a) 77 women attending a fertility clinic, of whom 25 tested positive for serum-IgG and (b) 107 women visiting an STI centre, including 30 Chlamydia PCR-positive subjects. Results. In the STI clinic, active Chlamydia infections were linked to serum-IgG and serum-IgA (P < 0.001) and mucosa-IgA (P < 0.001), but not mucosa-IgG. In the fertility clinic, mucosa-IgG had stronger correlations with serum-IgG (P = 0.02) than mucosa-IgA (P = 0.06). Women with tubal pathology or Chlamydia history more commonly had serum-IgG and mucosa-IgA (both P < 0.001), whereas this link was weaker for mucosa-IgG (P = 0.03). Conclusion. Chlamydia IgG and IgA are detectable in vaginal mucosal material. Serum-IgG had stronger associations with current or past infections. Mucosa-IgA also showed associations with (past) infection and complications. IgA presence in vaginal mucosa warrants further epidemiological studies.
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.