ArticlePractical laboratory medicine2022
Comparison of 17 serological treponemal and nontreponemal assays for syphilis: A retrospective cohort study.
Article in Practical laboratory medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Properties of Different Serological Methods for Syphilis Testing in Brazil.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Assessment of the suitability of the dried blood spot (DBS) samples for detection of Treponemal antibodies using in vitro assays.The Indian journal of medical research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Rapid plasma reagin (RPR) and Design and methods: In all, 143 sera from 110 patients were tested using 12 TP kits and 5 RPR kits and the results compared. Results: The specificity and sensitivity of RPR kits were 81-96% and 95-100%, respectively. The correlation coefficients (0.849-0.934) considerably differed between the manual RPR card test and latex agglutination (LA) assay kits. The following sensitivities were obtained: 82-91% for TP fluorescent treponemal antibody absorption assay (FTA-ABS), TP hemagglutination assay (HA), and TP particle agglutination assay (PA); 94-95% for TP LAs; and 92-100% for chemiluminescent immunoassay (CLIA), chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay (CLEIA), and immunochromatography assay (IC). Correlation coefficients between TP kits were 0.753-0.974, and the measured values varied. Changes in RPR and quantifiable TP kits were the same for patients with reinfected syphilis and with syphilis under treatment. Conclusions: RPR tests had lower specificity than TP antibody tests. RPR card test and RPR LAs had similar specificity and sensitivity, but their measured values were different. RPR should be measured using automatic RPR LA without setting the upper limit of the reported value. RPR LA should also be standardized. The sensitivity of TP antibody was better in CLIA, CLEIA, and IC than in FTA-ABS, HA, PA, and LA. Therefore, TP antibody kits should be standardized and quantified.
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.