ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2019
Evaluation of the BioPlex 2200 syphilis total screen (IgG/IgM) with reflex to an automated rapid plasma reagin test.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A 2021 Update on Syphilis: Taking Stock from Pathogenesis to Vaccines.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Evaluation of the BioPlex 2200 syphilis total screen (IgG/IgM) with reflex to an automated rapid plasma reagin test.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2019Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe evaluated the recently FDA cleared BioPlex 2200 Syphilis Total Screen and automated rapid plasma reagin (RPR) assay for the detection of total (IgG/IgM) treponemal and non-treponemal antibodies in the reverse syphilis algorithm.
methodsProspectively submitted samples (n = 885) were assayed by both the IgG/IgM BioPlex Syphilis Screen and the original IgG BioPlex Syphilis Screen. The IgG screen reactive samples were reflexed to traditional RPR, and IgG/IgM screen reactive samples were reflexed to the automated RPR. Nonreactive RPR samples were tested by the Treponemal Pallidum Particle Agglutination test (TP-PA). Additional samples were collected (n = 404 total samples) to directly compare the automated and traditional RPR assays with each other.
resultsThe sensitivity and specificity of the IgG/IgM screen with automated RPR was 95.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 87.0-99.1) and 99.6% (CI 99.2-99.8) while the sensitivity and specificity of the BioPlex IgG screen with traditional RPR was 97.8% (CI 89.1-99.9) and 99.3% (CI 98.8-99.4). The sensitivity and specificity of the BioPlex RPR compared with traditional RPR was 95.8% (CI 93.9-97.0) and 94.1% (CI 89.4-91.1) and 95.3% (CI 92.6-97.1). The mean of the titer differences between the BioPlex RPR and the traditional RPR was 1.0 ± 0.9 SD titers.
conclusionThe addition of the detection of treponemal IgM antibodies to the IgG/IgM screen did not significantly affect the sensitivity and specificity compared to the original IgG screen. However, the addition of the comparable BioPlex RPR assay to the instrumentation significantly reduces the overall labor of syphilis screening and confirmation.
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.