ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2015
Evaluation of a Rapid Immunochromatographic Treponemal Antibody Test Comparing the Treponema Pallidum Particle Agglutination Assay.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Control of alluvial aquifer architecture on reductive and oxidative dechlorination of chloroethenes.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2026Article
- Serological testing for syphilis in the differential diagnosis of cognitive decline and polyneuropathy in geriatric patients.BMC geriatrics · 2023Article
- Novel Biochemical Insights in the Cerebrospinal Fluid of Patients with Neurosyphilis Based on a Metabonomics Study.Journal of molecular neuroscience : MN · 2019Article
- Lessons from a comparison of immuno-chromatographic and chemiluminescent micro-particle immunoassay in the diagnosis of syphilis.BMC research notes · 2018Article
- Laboratory Evaluation of a Commercially Available Rapid Syphilis Test.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn addition to conventional tests, several methods for detection of treponema-specific antibodies in clinical settings have been recently introduced. We aim to comparatively evaluate a rapid immunochromatographic test (ICT) for Treponema pallidum specific antibody (SD Bioline Syphilis 3.0) and the T. pallidum particle agglutination (TPPA) assay.
methodsIn all, 132 serum samples from 78 syphilis patients and 54 syphilis-negative controls were analyzed. SD Bioline Syphilis 3.0 test (Standard Diagnostic, Inc., Yongin, Korea) was evaluated and compared to Serodia TPPA assay (Fujirebio, Inc., Tokyo, Japan). All discrepant results between the two assays were repeatedly tested and evaluated by the fluorescent treponemal antibody-absorption (FTA-ABS) assay. Test reproducibility and 95% limit of detection of SD Bioline Syphilis 3.0 were determined across three different lots for seven consecutive days in triplicate. Interference due to autoantibodies and pregnancy was also tested.
resultsPercent agreement between SD Bioline Syphilis 3.0 and TPPA assays was 99.2%. Sensitivity and specificity were 100%, respectively. In TPPA assay, test-to-test, day-to-day, and lot-to-lot variations were not identified until 1:320 titer (eightfold dilutions). There was no interference due to the presence of antinuclear antibodies or samples or pregnancy.
conclusionsPercent agreement of SD Syphilis 3.0 and TPPA was very good. Sensitivity and specificity were appropriate for T. pallidum antibody detection. Thus, a rapid ICT could be suitable for syphilis antibody detection.
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.