ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2023
Evaluation of Three Automated Nontreponemal Rapid Plasma Reagin (RPR) Tests for the Laboratory Diagnosis of Syphilis.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors and diagnostic indicators for congenital syphilis: a Nationwide retrospective survey.Epidemiology and infection · 2025Article
- Advances in Syphilis Diagnostics to Address the 21st-Century Epidemic.Clinical chemistry · 2025Review
- Update on syphilis diagnostics.Current opinion in infectious diseases · 2025Review
- Kinetics of RPR Decline in Pregnant Persons Treated for Syphilis in Pregnancy and Their Infants.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- 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
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Automated nontreponemal rapid plasma reagin (RPR) tests were recently introduced in the United States for syphilis testing and limited performance data are available. In collaboration with the Association of Public Health Laboratories, three public health laboratories (PHL) were chosen through a competitive selection process to evaluate the performance of three FDA-cleared automated RPR test systems: BioPlex 2200 Syphilis Total & RPR assay (Bio-Rad Laboratories), AIX 1000 (Gold Standard Diagnostics), and ASI Evolution (Arlington Scientific). Panels prepared at the CDC included: a qualitative panel comprised of 734 syphilis reactive/nonreactive sera; a quantitative panel of 50 syphilis reactive sera (RPR titer 1:64 to 1:1,024); and a reproducibility panel of 15 nonreactive and reactive sera (RPR titer 1:1 to 1:64). Panels were shipped frozen to the PHL and tested on the automated RPR systems following manufacturers' instructions. Prior test results were blinded to all laboratories. When compared to manual RPR (Arlington Scientific) performed at the CDC as a reference test, the qualitative panel results demonstrated an overall concordance of 95.9% for AIX 1000, 94.6% for ASI Evolution, and 92.6% for Bioplex RPR; quantitative panel showed within range titer of 2-fold for 94% of specimens for AIX 1000, 68% for ASI Evolution, and 64% for BioPlex RPR, and the reproducibility testing panel demonstrated point estimates ranging from 69 to 95%. Automated RPR instruments could reduce turnaround time and minimize interpretation errors. However, additional evaluations with more specimens could assist laboratories with implementing automated RPR tests and understanding their limitations.
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.