Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32767178›Full record

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.

Todd M Pryce, Valerie J Hiew, Erin J Haygarth, David M Whiley

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. False-positiveJournal of clinical microbiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Genomic analysis of aASM case reports · 2025
    Article
  3. Maximizing theJournal of clinical microbiology · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Todd M PryceDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, PathWest Laboratory Medicine WA, Fiona Stanley Hospital, 9 Robin Warren Drive, Murdoch, Western Australia, 6150, Australia. todd.pryce@health.wa.gov.au.
Valerie J HiewDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, PathWest Laboratory Medicine WA, Fiona Stanley Hospital, 9 Robin Warren Drive, Murdoch, Western Australia, 6150, Australia.
Erin J HaygarthDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, PathWest Laboratory Medicine WA, Fiona Stanley Hospital, 9 Robin Warren Drive, Murdoch, Western Australia, 6150, Australia.
David M WhileyCentre for Clinical Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

GonorrheaHumansNeisseria gonorrhoeaeNucleic Acid Amplification TechniquesOropharynxPolymerase Chain ReactionSensitivity and SpecificityCommercial screening assaysConfirmatory testingFalse-positive resultsNeisseria gonorrhoeae

Identifiers

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.