Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32407506›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

Evaluation of the Performance of a Point-of-Care Test for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea.

Barbara Van Der Pol, Stephanie N Taylor, Leandro Mena, Joel Lebed, Candice Joy McNeil, LaShonda Crane, Aaron Ermel, Adam Sukhija-Cohen, Charlotte A Gaydos

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Point-of-care Tests for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae: Review of the Literature.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Current and Emerging Approaches and Technologies for Rapid Detection of Neisseria gonorrhoeae Antimicrobial Resistance.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026
    Review
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. An amplification-free, 16S rRNA test forSensors & diagnostics · 2023
    Article
  15. Resistance-Guided Therapy for Neisseria gonorrhoeae.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2022
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Cluster analysis for symptomatic management ofFrontiers in public health · 2022
    Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Barbara Van Der PolDepartment of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, Birmingham.
Stephanie N TaylorDepartment of Medicine, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, New Orleans.
Leandro MenaDepartment of Medicine, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson.
Joel LebedPlanned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Candice Joy McNeilDepartment of Medicine, Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
LaShonda CranePlanned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Houston, Texas.
Aaron ErmelDepartment of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis.
Adam Sukhija-CohenAIDS Healthcare Foundation, Los Angeles, California.
Charlotte A GaydosDepartment of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.

Funding

LC: HIV Prevention Trials Network - Laboratory Support for the SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence Study (CoVPN 5002)UM1AI068613 · NIAID · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SUSAN H ESHLEMAN, Mark A Marzinke · 2011 to 2026
$100.2M
NIAID NIH HHS UM1 AI068613
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Rates of chlamydial and gonococcal infection continue to increase in the United States, as do the associated costs of untreated infections. Improved diagnostic technologies that support testing and treating in 1 clinical visit are critical to advancing efforts to control the rates of chlamydial and gonococcal infection. Objective: To evaluate the clinical performance of a point-of-care (POC) molecular diagnostic assay for the detection of chlamydia and gonorrhea. Design, Setting, and Participants: A noninterventional, cross-sectional clinical study was conducted from September 18, 2018, through March 13, 2019, at sexually transmitted infection (STI), HIV, family planning, and obstetrics and gynecology clinics where STI screening is routine, using a convenience sample and comparing commercially available assays with a new 30-minute POC assay. Patients included were those eligible for STI screening or diagnostic testing who had not taken antibiotics effective against chlamydia or gonorrhea within the previous 28 days. Four vaginal swab samples were collected from women and a first-catch urine sample was obtained from men. Main Outcomes and Measures: A composite infection status was used to classify participants as infected if 2 or more comparator results were positive, as not infected if 2 or more comparator samples were negative, and as unevaluable if 1 result was invalid and the other 2 results did not agree with each other. Results: Swab samples from 1523 women (median age, 27 years [interquartile range, 17-37 years]), 817 (53.6%) of whom presented with symptoms, and 922 men (median age, 29 years [interquartile range, 17-41 years]), 308 (33.4%) of whom were symptomatic, were tested. For chlamydia, sensitivity of the new POC assay was 96.1% (95% CI, 91.2%-98.3%) for women and 92.5% (95% CI, 86.4%-96.0%) for men. For gonorrhea, sensitivity estimates were 100.0% (95% CI, 92.1%-100.0%) for women and 97.3% (95% CI, 90.7%-99.3%) for men. For chlamydia, specificity of the new POC assay was 99.1% (95% CI, 98.4%-99.5%) for women and 99.3% (95% CI, 98.4%-99.7%) for men. For gonorrhea, specificity estimates were 99.9% (95% CI, 99.5%-100%) for women and 100% (95% CI, 95.5%-100%) for men. Non-laboratory-trained personnel performed 94.8% of all tests (2318 of 2445) during the study. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that self-obtained vaginal swab samples were associated with performance equivalent to laboratory-based molecular diagnostics, which can support use of this POC assay in many settings. The availability of an easy-to-use, rapid (30-minute) molecular test for accurate detection of chlamydia and gonorrhea has the power to facilitate testing and treatment in a single patient visit for these STIs.

Indexed as

Point-of-Care SystemsAdolescentAdultChlamydia InfectionsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleGonorrheaHumansMaleSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID32407506
PMCPMC7225902

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.