ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2015
Evaluation of different confirmatory algorithms using seven treponemal tests on Architect Syphilis TP-positive/RPR-negative sera.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2015. 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.
- High precision classification of hot rolled strip steel surface defects using dual path features and entropy attention fusion.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Lessons from a comparison of immuno-chromatographic and chemiluminescent micro-particle immunoassay in the diagnosis of syphilis.BMC research notes · 2018Article
- Improvement of reverse sequence algorithm for syphilis diagnosis using optimal treponemal screening assay signal-to-cutoff ratio.PloS one · 2018Article
- Traditional versus reverse syphilis algorithms: A comparison at a large academic medical center.Practical laboratory medicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Architect Syphilis TP is considered to be a suitable screening test due to its high sensitivity and full automation. According to the International Union against Sexually Transmitted Infections (IUSTI) 2014 guidelines, however, positive screening tests need confirmation with Treponema pallidum particle agglutination (TP.PA). Among Architect-positive results, samples with a negative non-treponemal test present the major diagnostic challenge. In this multicenter study, we investigated if other, preferable less labor-intensive treponemal tests could replace TP.PA. A total of 178 rapid plasma reagin (RPR)-negative sera with an Architect value between 1 and 15 S/CO were prospectively selected in three centers. These sera were analyzed with TP.PA and six alternative treponemal tests: three immunoblots and three tests on random-access analyzers. The diagnostic performance of the treponemal tests differed substantially, with the overall agreement between the six alternative tests ranging from 44.6 to 82.0%. Based on TP.PA as the gold standard, the INNO-LIA IgG blot, the BioPlex 2200 IgG, and the Syphilis TPA showed a high sensitivity, while the EUROLINE-WB IgG blot, recomLine Treponema IgG blot, and the Chorus Syphilis screen showed a high specificity. However, an Architect cut-off of 5.6 S/CO can serve as an alternative for these confirmatory treponemal tests in case of an RPR-negative result. Treponemal tests show poor agreement in this challenging group of Architect-positive/RPR-negative sera. The most optimal algorithm is obtained by assigning sera with an Architect value >5.6 S/CO as true-positives and sera with a value between 1 and 5.6 S/CO as undetermined, requiring further testing with TP.PA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26187433What 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.