ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2016
Comparison of Six Automated Treponema-Specific Antibody Assays.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 · 2020Pooled it
- Comparison of 17 serological treponemal and nontreponemal assays for syphilis: A retrospective cohort study.Practical laboratory medicine · 2022Article
- An electrochemical scaffold sensor for rapid syphilis diagnosis.The Analyst · 2019Article
- Comparison of Traditional and Reverse Syphilis Screening Algorithms in Medical Health Checkups.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2017Article
- Evaluation of Elecsys Syphilis Assay for Routine and Blood Screening and Detection of Early Infection.Journal of clinical microbiology · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Six different Treponema (TP)-specific immunoassays were compared to the fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption (FTA-ABS) test. A total of 615 samples were tested. The overall percent agreement, analytical sensitivity, and analytical specificity of each assay compared to the FTA-ABS test were as follows: Architect Syphilis TP, 99.2%, 96.8%, and 100%; Cobas Syphilis, 99.8%, 99.4%, and 100%; ADVIA Centaur Syphilis, 99.8%, 99.4%, and 100%; HISCL Anti-TP assay kit, 99.7%, 98.7%, and 100%; Immunoticles Auto3 TP, 99.0%, 97.5%, and 99.6%; Mediace TPLA, 98.0%, 98.1%, and 98.0%. All results that were discrepant between the TP-specific assays were associated with samples from noninfectious cases (11 immunoassay false positives and 7 from previous syphilis cases). Our study demonstrated that TP-specific immunoassays generally showed high sensitivities, specificities, and percentages of agreement compared to FTA-ABS, with rare cases of false-positive or false-negative results. Therefore, most TP-specific immunoassays are acceptable for use in screening for syphilis. However, it is important to perform a thorough review of a patient's clinical and treatment history for interpreting the results of syphilis serology.
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.