| Literature DB >> 20822551 |
Achchhe L Patel1, Divya Sachdev, Poonam Nagpal, Uma Chaudhry, Subash C Sonkar, Suman L Mendiratta, Daman Saluja.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Screening women for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in developing countries is highly desirable because of asymptomatic infection. The existing diagnostic methods in developing countries are not effective and their sensitivity fall below 45.0% which leads to further spread of infection. There is an urgent need for improved and cost effective diagnostic tests that will reduce the burden of sexually transmitted infections in the developing world.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20822551 PMCID: PMC2944303 DOI: 10.1186/1476-0711-9-24
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob ISSN: 1476-0711 Impact factor: 3.944
List of various organisms and their source; used for evaluation of specificity of the C2/C5 primers.
| Organism/Strain/Isolate | Number of Specimens tested | Source(s) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dr. Peter Braun, Max Plank Institute for Infection Biology, Berlin, Germany | |
| 12 isolates from STD cases | Dr. Sudha Salhan, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjang Hospital, New Delhi, India. | |
| 8 | Department of Microbiology AIIMS, New Delhi, India. | |
| 5 | ||
| 10 | ||
| 11 | ||
| 2 | ||
| 2 | ||
| 2 | ||
| 2 | ||
| Herpes simplex virus 1(HSV-1) and Herpes simplex virus 2 (HSV-2) | 2 | |
| Cytomegalovirus | 2 | |
| BK virus | 2 | |
| 8 | Department of Microbiology AIIMS, New Delhi, India & Department of Poultry Science, University of Georgia, Athens, USA. | |
| 2 | ||
| 3 | Prof. J. W. Tapsall, WHO Collaborating Centre for STD and HIV, Department of Microbiology, The Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia. | |
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 10 | ||
Figure 1Prevalence of .
Figure 2Prevalence of .
Figure 3Sensitivity of in-house primers using purified chlamydial genomic DNA. PCR amplification of purified genomic DNA (100 ng to 1 fg) of C. trachomatis serovar D was carried out by using C2/C5 primers.
Comparison of in-house PCR with DFA and Roche amplicor MWP kit, results for C. trachomatis before and after discrepant analysis.
| PCR results | After resolution of discordant results | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | 59 | 24 | 83 | 70(59+11) | 13(24-11) | |
| Negative | 4 | 187 | 191 | 4 | 187 | |
| Total | 63 | 211 | 274 | 74 | 200 | |
| Group II | Roche | |||||
| Positive | 60 | 13 | 73 | 69(60+9) | 4(13-9) | |
| Negative | 2 | 244 | 246 | 2 | 244 | |
| Total | 62 | 257 | 319 | 71 | 248 | |
Resolution of discrepant results for C. trachomatis infection.
| No. of discrepant samples | Conclusion | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group I (n = 28) | 11 | + | - | + | True positive |
| 4 | - | + | + | True positive | |
| 13 | + | - | - | True negative | |
| Group II (n = 15) | Roche | ||||
| 9 | + | - | + | True positive | |
| 4 | + | - | - | True negative | |
| 2 | - | + | + | True positive | |
A second test was applied for each sample. FISH was taken as the gold standard for group I and ompA/plde for group II.
Performance of in-house PCR assays based on expanded spectrum of positivity after confirmatory FISH assay and ompA/plde PCR.
| In-house PCR Assay | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group I | 94.5 | 86.7-98.5 | 93.6 | 89.1-96.5 | 84.3 | 74.7-91.4 | 98 | 94.7-99.4 |
| Group II | 97.1 | 90.2-99.7 | 98.4 | 95.9-99.6 | 94.5 | 86.6-98.5 | 99 | 97.1-99.9 |
a CI, Confidence interval.