ArticleBiomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud2025
Comparison between treponemal and non-treponemal tests for syphilis detection
Article in Biomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Syphilis detection has traditionally relied on non-treponemal tests for screening followed by confirmation with a treponemal test, an algorithm implemented worldwide. Objective: To evaluate the performance of treponemal and non-treponemal tests in the effective detection of syphilis among blood donors. Materials and methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 384 samples, initially reactive for syphilis by non-treponemal tests (VDRL). All samples were retested by VDRL, ELISA, CLIA, and FTA-ABS, the latter as a confirmatory test. We calculated kappa coefficients to establish agreement between tests and determine performance indices for each assay. Results: We identified agreement between non-treponemal and treponemal tests. Concordance between VDRL and ELISA was 78.8% and between CLIA and VDRL was of 76% (p < 0.005). The concordance between ELISA and CLIA was 83%. When comparing the results of treponemal and non-treponemal tests with FTA-ABS, concordance rates ranged from 44.2% to 61.9%. Performance indices showed that non-treponemal and treponemal tests exhibit sensitivity values between 89.70% and 99.39%. The positive predictive value was higher for the CLIA test (95.27%), whereas the highest false-positive rate was observed for the VDRL test (94.52%). Conclusions: The samples analyzed were reactive from the outset, which could interfere with the measurement parameters. However, they provided valuable information to evaluate the implemented algorithms.
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.