Literature DB >> 11682509

Relative accuracy of nucleic acid amplification tests and culture in detecting Chlamydia in asymptomatic men.

H Cheng1, M Macaluso, S H Vermund, E W Hook.   

Abstract

Published estimates of the sensitivity and specificity of PCR and ligase chain reaction (LCR) for detecting Chlamydia trachomatis are potentially biased because of study design limitations (confirmation of test results was limited to subjects who were PCR or LCR positive but culture negative). Relative measures of test accuracy are less prone to bias in incomplete study designs. We estimated the relative sensitivity (RSN) and relative false-positive rate (RFP) for PCR and LCR versus cell culture among 1,138 asymptomatic men and evaluated the potential bias of RSN and RFP estimates. PCR and LCR testing in urine were compared to culture of urethral specimens. Discordant results (PCR or LCR positive, but culture negative) were confirmed by using a sequence including the other DNA amplification test, direct fluorescent antibody testing, and a DNA amplification test to detect chlamydial major outer membrane protein. The RSN estimates for PCR and LCR were 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.3 to 1.7) and 1.49 (95% CI = 1.3 to 1.7), respectively, indicating that both methods are more sensitive than culture. Very few false-positive results were found, indicating that the specificity levels of PCR, LCR, and culture are high. The potential bias in RSN and RFP estimates were <5 and <20%, respectively. The estimation of bias is based on the most likely and probably conservative parameter settings. If the sensitivity of culture is between 60 and 65%, then the true sensitivity of PCR and LCR is between 90 and 97%. Our findings indicate that PCR and LCR are significantly more sensitive than culture, while the three tests have similar specificities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11682509      PMCID: PMC88466          DOI: 10.1128/JCM.39.11.3927-3937.2001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Microbiol        ISSN: 0095-1137            Impact factor:   5.948


  19 in total

1.  Validity and coverage of estimates of relative accuracy.

Authors:  H Cheng; M Macaluso; J M Hardin
Journal:  Ann Epidemiol       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 3.797

Review 2.  DFA, EIA, PCR, LCR and other technologies: what tests should be used for diagnosis of chlamydia infections?

Authors:  J Schachter
Journal:  Immunol Invest       Date:  1997 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 3.657

3.  Evaluation of bias in diagnostic-test sensitivity and specificity estimates computed by discrepant analysis.

Authors:  T A Green; C M Black; R E Johnson
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1998-02       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 4.  The discrepancy in discrepant analysis.

Authors:  A Hadgu
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-08-31       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Discrepant analysis and screening for Chlamydia trachomatis.

Authors:  J Schachter; W E Stamm; T C Quinn
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-01-17       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Discrepant analysis and screening for Chlamydia trachomatis.

Authors:  J Schachter; W E Stamm; T C Quinn
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-11-09       Impact factor: 79.321

7.  Bias in the evaluation of DNA-amplification tests for detecting Chlamydia trachomatis.

Authors:  A Hadgu
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1997-06-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 8.  Evaluation and comparison of tests to diagnose Chlamydia trachomatis genital infections.

Authors:  D Taylor-Robinson
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 6.918

Review 9.  Current methods of laboratory diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis infections.

Authors:  C M Black
Journal:  Clin Microbiol Rev       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 26.132

10.  Laboratory to laboratory variation in Chlamydia trachomatis culture practices.

Authors:  M S Pate; E W Hook
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  1995 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.830

View more
  7 in total

1.  Prospective comparison of cell cultures and nucleic acid amplification tests for laboratory diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis Infections.

Authors:  Deborah J Jespersen; Karen S Flatten; Mary F Jones; Thomas F Smith
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  A comparison of clinical features between chlamydial and non-chlamydial urethritis in men negative for gonococcal infection who attended a urological outpatient clinic in Japan.

Authors:  Toshifumi Kurahashi; Hideaki Miyake; Yuzo Nakano; Masashi Shinozaki; Nobutoshi Oka; Kazushi Tanaka; Atsushi Takenaka; Isao Hara; Soichi Arakawa; Masato Fujisawa
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2007-01-09       Impact factor: 2.370

3.  Performance value of high risk factors in colorectal cancer screening in China.

Authors:  Wen Meng; Shan-Rong Cai; Lun Zhou; Qi Dong; Shu Zheng; Su-Zhan Zhang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-12-28       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  The Use of Urine and Self-obtained Vaginal Swabs for the Diagnosis of Sexually Transmitted Diseases.

Authors:  Charlotte A. Gaydos; Anne M. Rompalo
Journal:  Curr Infect Dis Rep       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 3.725

5.  Comparative screening of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women population in tehran, iran.

Authors:  B Fatholahzadeh; A Bahador; M Haghighi Hasanabad; F Bazarjani; F Haghighi
Journal:  Iran Red Crescent Med J       Date:  2012-05-30       Impact factor: 0.611

6.  Prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis and Mycoplasma genitalium in pregnant women of Sabzevar-Iran.

Authors:  M Haghighi Hasanabad; M Mohammadzadeh; A Bahador; N Fazel; H Rakhshani; A Majnooni
Journal:  Iran J Microbiol       Date:  2011-09

7.  Could urine be useful for the diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis pneumonia in infancy?

Authors:  Joan L Robinson; Kay Meier; Bonita E Lee; Bryce Larke
Journal:  Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2014-02-20       Impact factor: 2.803

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.