ReviewClinical and vaccine immunology : CVI2015
Recent trends in the serologic diagnosis of syphilis.
Review in Clinical and vaccine immunology : CVI, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
71 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 208 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epidemiology ofBMJ global health · 2026Pooled it
- Description of clinical cases and available diagnostic tools of oropharyngeal syphilis: a systematic review of the literature.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Pooled it
- The impact of antenatal syphilis point of care testing on pregnancy outcomes: A systematic review.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Clinical and serological outcomes of syphilis: an 18-year retrospective cohort study on predictors of treatment response and seroreversion in Türkiye.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026Article
- Discrepant treponemal test results: Identification of associated risk factors through machine learning technology in 18-year electronic medical records and national claims data.Biomedical journal · 2026Article
- Updates on epidemiology and diagnostic tests of syphilis in South Korea.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2026Review
- State-of-the-Art Review: Congenital Syphilis in the Modern Era: Current Strategies and Future Directions.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026Review
- The changing epidemiology of syphilis: new strategies for new challenges in China.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2025Review
- Clinical development and performance of the First to Know Syphilis Self-Test for over-the-counter usage: aJournal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- A novel colorimetric immunosensor based on silk cocoon membrane-integrated ELISA for treponemal antibody detection.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Properties of Different Serological Methods for Syphilis Testing in Brazil.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Accuracy of capillary blood sampling for diagnosing syphilis infection.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Predictors of Serological Cure in Syphilis Patients: A Retrospective Study at a Tertiary Hospital in Bandung, Indonesia.Infection and drug resistance · 2025Article
- Factors associated with false positive results in serological testing for syphilis using EIA among children.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Participants inFrontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Decoding and Unravelling Mpox, Herpes, and Syphilis Infections: A State of Art Review.Current pharmaceutical biotechnology · 2025Review
- Oral syphilis - the great imitator: a series of six cases.British dental journal · 2024Article
- Syphilis infection prevalence in the Middle East and North Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- Improved efficiency using sequential automated immunoassays for syphilis screening in blood donors.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Complexities in the diagnosis of syphilis continue to challenge clinicians. While direct tests (e.g., microscopy or PCR) are helpful in early syphilis, the mainstay of diagnosis remains serologic tests. The traditional algorithm using a nontreponemal test (NTT) followed by a treponemal test (TT) remains the standard in many parts of the world. More recently, the ability to automate the TT has led to the increasingly widespread use of reverse algorithms using treponemal enzyme immunoassays (EIAs). Rapid, point-of-care TTs are in widespread use in developing countries because of low cost, ease of use, and reasonable performance. However, none of the current diagnostic algorithms are able to distinguish current from previously treated infections. In addition, the reversal of traditional syphilis algorithms has led to uncertainty in the clinical management of patients. The interpretation of syphilis tests is further complicated by the lack of a reliable gold standard for syphilis diagnostics, and the newer tests can result in false-positive reactions similar to those seen with older tests. Little progress has been made in the area of serologic diagnostics for congenital syphilis, which requires assessment of maternal treatment and serologic response as well as clinical and laboratory investigation of the neonate for appropriate management. The diagnosis of neurosyphilis continues to require the collection of cerebrospinal fluid for a combination of NTT and TT, and, while newer treponemal EIAs look promising, more studies are needed to confirm their utility. This article reviews current tests and discusses current controversies in syphilis diagnosis, with a focus on serologic tests.
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.