ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2022
Laboratory Evaluation of the DPP Syphilis Screen & Confirm Assay.
Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Potential for Combined Treponemal/Nontreponemal Rapid Point-of-Care Test and Treponema pallidum Polymerase Chain Reaction in the Diagnosis of Gestational and Congenital Syphilis in a Low-Resource, High-Prevalence Setting: Pilot Data From Malawi.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2026Article
- Women engaged in commercial sex living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus and viral non-suppression in Uganda: analysis of multiple respondent-driven sampling surveys, 2021-2023.BMC global and public health · 2026Article
- Dual Treponemal and Non-Treponemal Rapid Test for Syphilis in People Living with HIV: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2026Article
- How to Use Rapid Dual Treponemal and Lipoidal Tests in Clinical Practice.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2026Article
- Technological innovations and breakthrough pathways in syphilis diagnosis: addressing global resurgence and the journey toward elimination.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Field evaluation of a dual treponemal/non-treponemal point-of-care test for syphilis within an HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis programme in Hanoi, Vietnam.Sexually transmitted infections · 2025Article
- Clinical development and performance of the First to Know Syphilis Self-Test for over-the-counter usage: aJournal of clinical microbiology · 2025Article
- Laboratory Evaluation of the Chembio DPP Syphilis Screen & Confirm Point-of-Care Test on Serum and Simulated Blood Samples.Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada · 2024Article
- Stopping syphilis transmission in Arctic communities through rapid diagnostic testing: The STAR study protocol.PloS one · 2022Article
- Advantages and limitations of current diagnostic laboratory approaches in syphilis and congenital syphilis.Expert review of anti-infective therapyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Because syphilis is a public health concern, new strategies and tools for detecting active syphilis cases should be evaluated for future implementation. We assessed the laboratory performance of the DPP Syphilis Screen & Confirm rapid immunodiagnostic test (Chembio Diagnostics, Medford, NY, USA), using visual reading and the manufacturer's electronic test microreader, for detection of treponemal and nontreponemal antibodies in 383 fully characterized stored serum specimens. We used the Treponema pallidum particle agglutination (TPPA) test and rapid plasma reagin (RPR) test as reference tests for the DPP Syphilis Screen & Confirm assay treponemal and nontreponemal components, respectively. The sensitivity values for treponemal antibody detection by electronic reader and visual interpretation were 83.2% and 85.9%, respectively, with 100% specificity. For nontreponemal antibody detection, the sensitivity values were 65.7% and 69.0% and the specificity values were 88.7% and 89.4% for electronic reader and visual interpretation, respectively. There was excellent correlation between visual interpretation and the microreader for either component (kappa coefficient, 0.953). When restricting the analysis to RPR titers of ≥1:8, the sensitivity was 96.9% for either reading method; numerical microreader values showed good correlation with RPR titers (Spearman rho of 0.77). The DPP Syphilis Screen & Confirm assay showed good performance, compared to reference syphilis tests, using serum. Field evaluation studies should be done to validate its use for detection of active cases and for monitoring of treated syphilis patients.
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.