Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33492527›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2021

Comparison between Aptima® assays (Hologic) and the CoBAS® 6800 system (Roche) for the diagnosis of sexually transmitted infections caused by Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and Mycoplasma genitalium.

Antonio Barrientos-Durán, Adolfo de Salazar, Ana Fuentes-López, Esther Serrano-Conde, Beatriz Espadafor, Natalia Chueca, Marta Álvarez-Estévez, Federico Garcia

Abstract readComparative 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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Prevalence ofHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Antonio Barrientos-Durán *Clinical Microbiology Unit, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Cecilio.Instituto de Investigación Ibs.Granada, Granada, Spain.
Adolfo de Salazar *Clinical Microbiology Unit, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Cecilio.Instituto de Investigación Ibs.Granada, Granada, Spain.
Ana Fuentes-LópezClinical Microbiology Unit, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Cecilio.Instituto de Investigación Ibs.Granada, Granada, Spain.
Esther Serrano-CondeClinical Microbiology Unit, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Cecilio.Instituto de Investigación Ibs.Granada, Granada, Spain.
Beatriz EspadaforDermatology Unit, Centro de ETS, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain.
Natalia ChuecaClinical Microbiology Unit, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Cecilio.Instituto de Investigación Ibs.Granada, Granada, Spain.
Marta Álvarez-EstévezClinical Microbiology Unit, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Cecilio.Instituto de Investigación Ibs.Granada, Granada, Spain.
Federico GarciaClinical Microbiology Unit, Hospital Universitario Clínico San Cecilio.Instituto de Investigación Ibs.Granada, Granada, Spain. fegarcia@ugr.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7611-781X
Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria de Granada · ESHospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nowadays, it is of utmost importance to use fully validated assays for molecular-based diagnosis. In the field of sexually transmitted disease (STD), Roche and Hologic provide assays for diagnosing Chlamydia trachomatis (CT), Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG), Mycoplasma genitalium (MG), and Trichomonas vaginalis (TV). A total of 212 clinical samples were tested. Aptima® Combo 2 (detecting CT and NG), Aptima® M. genitalium and the Aptima® T. vaginalis on the Panther® system were compared to CoBAS® CT/NG and CoBAS® TV/MG running on the CoBAS® 6800 system. To solve the discrepancies, Allplex™ STI Essential assay (Seegene®) and/or Sanger DNA sequencing were used. The diagnostic performance was calculated by mean of the sensitivity and specificity parameters. Aptima® (sensitivity: 98.90%, specificity: 100%), CoBAS® (sensitivity 100%, specificity: 96.67%). The CoBAS® combo (CT/NG) failed detecting NG from an anal/rectum specimen, which is not included into the validated specimens of the assay. Aptima® combo 2 produced two false positives (CT and NG), not detected by the third tests. All the assays showed an optimal diagnostic capacity, meeting the requirements for IVD DNA-based assays. All products work optimally on automatic platforms, minimizing time and risk of contamination during handling.

Indexed as

Chlamydia InfectionsGonorrheaMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesMycoplasma InfectionsSexually Transmitted DiseasesAdultChlamydia trachomatisFemaleHumansMaleMycoplasma genitaliumNeisseria gonorrhoeaeSensitivity and SpecificityTrichomonas vaginalisTrichomonas VaginitisYoung AdultAutomatic platformsClinical performanceRoutine diagnosticsSensitivitySexually transmitted diseases (STD)Specificity

Identifiers

PMID33492527
OpenAlexW3125401496

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.