ArticleBMC infectious diseases2026
Comparison of CDC and ECDC reverse sequence algorithms for syphilis diagnosis: clinical implications of discordant serological results.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReverse sequence algorithms are increasingly used for the serological diagnosis of syphilis in clinical practice; however, differences between the approaches recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) may influence test interpretation.
methodsWe performed a retrospective laboratory-based study including 82 serum samples with reactive Treponema pallidum electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) results collected at a tertiary-care university hospital. Samples were evaluated according to CDC and ECDC reverse sequence algorithms using rapid plasma reagin (RPR) and Treponema pallidum hemagglutination assay (TPHA) in the respective testing sequence. Agreement between algorithms was assessed using percentage concordance and Cohen's κ statistic, and discordant results were further evaluated using available clinical and follow-up data.
resultsDiscordant serological patterns were identified between the two algorithms. Although overall agreement between the algorithms was high (96.3%; κ = 0.709), the wide confidence interval of Cohen's κ suggested statistical uncertainty, likely related to the limited number of discordant cases. Using the ECDC algorithm, three of 82 (3.7%) ECLIA-reactive samples with reactive RPR but nonreactive TPHA results did not fulfill the serological criteria of the testing sequence at the time of evaluation; follow-up serological findings in two of these cases were considered compatible with recent or early active syphilis.
conclusionsAlthough overall agreement between the algorithms was high, interpretation of discordant serological patterns may vary depending on testing sequence and assay selection. These findings suggest that early incorporation of nontreponemal testing may aid interpretation of discordant serological patterns in routine clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.