Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41060167›Full record

ArticleBiomedica : revista del Instituto Nacional de Salud2025

Comparison between treponemal and non-treponemal tests for syphilis detection

Verónica Aguaiza, Rosa F Chiriboga-Ponce

Abstract readComparative StudyEnglish Abstract
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Verónica AguaizaCentro de Investigación para la Salud en América Latina (CISeAL), Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0003-4418-4270
Rosa F Chiriboga-PonceCentro de Investigación para la Salud en América Latina (CISeAL), Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador; Carrera de Laboratorio Clínico, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0002-0987-7859

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

SyphilisSyphilis SerodiagnosisTreponema pallidumAdultAlgorithmsAntibodies, BacterialBlood DonorsCross-Sectional StudiesEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSensitivity and SpecificityAntibodies, Bacterialblood banksdiagnostic techniques and proceduressyphilisTreponema

Identifiers

PMID41060167
PMCPMC12542893

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.