ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2021
Second- and third-generation commercial Neisseria gonorrhoeae screening assays and the ongoing issues of false-positive results and confirmatory testing.
Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- False-positiveJournal of clinical microbiology · 2026Article
- Genomic analysis of aASM case reports · 2025Article
- Maximizing theJournal of clinical microbiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Supplementary nucleic acid amplification tests for Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) are widely used to circumvent specificity problems often associated with extragenital sites. This study was prompted by our observations and concerns from local sexual health physicians over increased discrepancies between Roche cobas 4800 CT/NG (c4800) and our in-house supplementary NG-PCR (NG-duplex) for oropharyngeal samples, when compared with Abbott RealTime CT/NG (m2000) performed prior. Here, we investigated these differences. Three banks of NG-positive samples were used. Bank 1 (n = 344) were screened using m2000. Banks 2 (n = 344) and 3 (n = 400) were screened using c4800. Remnant nucleic acids from all banks were tested using NG-duplex as part of routine testing. Bank 2 samples were further tested using m2000, some selectively tested using Cepheid Xpert CT/NG. Bank 3 samples were further tested using cobas CT/NG (cobas 6800 system). Confirmatory rates were significantly (p < 0.0001) higher for m2000 compared with c4800, with oropharyngeal samples the key difference. However, we also showed that our NG-duplex failed to confirm some true-positive NG samples. Using an expanded gold standard, confirmatory rates for m2000 and c4800 exceeded 90% for all anatomical sites with the exception of c4800 for oropharyngeal specimens at 78%. The observed discrepancies were due to a combination of c4800 producing false-positive results for oropharyngeal samples as well as sensitivity issues related to the NG-duplex assay. The data highlight the ongoing need for NG supplemental nucleic acid testing for oropharyngeal samples but also emphasise the need for careful selection of supplementary methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32767178What 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.