Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30021825›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2018

Laboratory Evaluation of a Commercially Available Rapid Syphilis Test.

Lara E Pereira, Joshua McCormick, Tandin Dorji, Joseph Kang, Yongcheng Sun, Mayur Shukla, Andre Hopkins, John Deutsch, Ellen N Kersh, Kyle Bernstein and 1 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Clinical Test Performance of a Rapid Point-of-Care Syphilis Treponemal Antibody Test: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. CDC Laboratory Recommendations for Syphilis Testing, United States, 2024.MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports · 2024
    Article
  5. The Laboratory Diagnosis of Syphilis.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2021
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Lara E PereiraDivision of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA vvg3@cdc.gov.
Joshua McCormickOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.
Tandin DorjiDivision of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Joseph KangDivision of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Yongcheng SunDivision of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Mayur ShuklaAtlanta Research and Education Foundation, Inc., Decatur, Georgia, USA.
Andre HopkinsDivision of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
John DeutschOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA.
Ellen N KershDivision of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Kyle BernsteinDivision of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Yetunde F FakileDivision of STD Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Serological diagnosis of syphilis depends on assays that detect treponemal and nontreponemal antibodies. Laboratory certification and trained personnel are needed to perform most of these tests, while high costs and long turnaround time can hinder treatment initiation or linkage to care. A rapid treponemal syphilis test (RST) that is simple to perform, accessible, and inexpensive would be ideal. The Syphilis Health Check (SHC) assay is the only Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared and Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-waived RST in the United States. In this study, 1,406 archived human serum samples were tested using SHC and traditional treponemal and nontreponemal assays. Rapid test results were compared with treponemal data alone and with a laboratory test panel consensus defined as being reactive by both treponemal and nontreponemal assays for a given specimen, or nonreactive by both types of assays. The sensitivity and specificity of the SHC assay compared with treponemal tests alone were 88.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.2 to 90.0%) and 93.1% (95% CI, 90.0 to 94.9%), respectively, while comparison with the laboratory test panel consensus showed 95.7% (95% CI, 93.6 to 97.2%) sensitivity and 93.2% (95% CI, 91.0 to 95.1%) specificity. The data were further stratified based on age, sex, pregnancy, and HIV status. The sensitivity and specificity of the SHC assay ranged from 66.7% (95% CI, 46.0 to 83.5%) to 91.7% (95% CI, 87.7 to 94.7%) and 88% (95% CI, 68.8 to 97.5%) to 100% (95% CI, 47.8 to 100%), respectively, across groups compared to traditional treponemal assays, generally increasing for all groups except the HIV-positive (HIV

Indexed as

Antibodies, BacterialClinical Laboratory TechniquesDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFemaleHumansMaleReagent Kits, DiagnosticSensitivity and SpecificitySyphilisSyphilis SerodiagnosisTime FactorsTreponema pallidumAntibodies, BacterialReagent Kits, Diagnosticdiagnosticsfield testsimmunodiagnosticslaboratory testsrapid testsserologysexually transmitted diseasessyphilisSyphilis Health Check

Identifiers

PMID30021825
PMCPMC6156315

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.