Literature DB >> 3911605

Immunodiagnosis of sexually transmitted disease.

J Schachter.   

Abstract

Methods for detecting microbial antigens in clinical specimens offer an alternative to culture in the diagnosis of some sexually transmitted diseases. Developers of the immunologic methods are faced with a number of problems in evaluating the new tests. Traditionally, these tests are compared to culture as the "gold standard." Unfortunately, culture for Neisseria gonorrhoeae or Chlamydia trachomatis--the two agents most commonly sought--is considerably less sensitive than 100 percent. Immunologic methods may appear to produce false positives when the paired specimens are actually false-negative cultures. Another source of discordant results is sampling variation. These considerations, however, will not account for all false-positive results. Even the best non-culture methods have a low rate of false-positive results. If a new test has a specificity of 97 percent, it, by definition, yields approximately 3 percent false-positive reactions. In low-prevalence settings this false-positive rate will create problems in interpreting the results. For example, in a population with 3 percent prevalence of infection, a positive result in a 97 percent specificity test could only have a predictive value of 50 percent. Most testing for STD agents is performed in low-prevalence settings. None of the currently available immunodiagnostic procedures has a performance profile that suggests it will be satisfactory for diagnostic use in the low-prevalence setting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1985        PMID: 3911605      PMCID: PMC2589942     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Yale J Biol Med        ISSN: 0044-0086


  15 in total

1.  Comparison of urethral swabs, urine, and urinary sediment for the isolation of Chlamydia.

Authors:  T F Smith; L A Weed
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1976-08       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Screening for Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae in adolescent males: value of first-catch urine examination.

Authors:  H Adger; M A Shafer; R L Sweet; J Schachter
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1984-10-27       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Combining cervical and anal-canal specimens for gonorrhea on a single culture plate.

Authors:  F N Judson; B A Werness
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1980-08       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Gonococcal serology: how soon, how useful, and how much.

Authors:  P E Dans; R Rothenberg; K K Holmes
Journal:  J Infect Dis       Date:  1977-02       Impact factor: 5.226

5.  Screening for chlamydial infections in women attending family planning clinics.

Authors:  J Schachter; E Stoner; J Moncada
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1983-03

6.  Vancomycin-sensitive strains of Neisseria gonorrhoeae. A problem for the diagnostic laboratory.

Authors:  J E Brorson; I Holmberg; B Nygren; S Seeberg
Journal:  Br J Vener Dis       Date:  1973-10

7.  Chlamydia trachomatis-induced urethritis in female partners of men with nongonococcal urethritis.

Authors:  J Paavonen
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  1979 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.830

8.  Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis inclusions in Mccoy cell cultures with fluorescein-conjugated monoclonal antibodies.

Authors:  W E Stamm; M Tam; M Koester; L Cles
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1983-04       Impact factor: 5.948

9.  Effect of menstrual cycle and method of contraception on recovery of Neisseria gonorrhoeae.

Authors:  W M McCormack; G H Reynolds
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1982-03-05       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 10.  Urine as a specimen for diagnosis of sexually transmitted diseases.

Authors:  J Schachter
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  1983-07-28       Impact factor: 4.965

View more
  32 in total

1.  Evaluation of COBAS AMPLICOR (Roche): accuracy in detection of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae by coamplification of endocervical specimens.

Authors:  C H Livengood; J W Wrenn
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 2.  Chlamydial infections.

Authors:  J Schachter
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  1990-11

3.  Comparison of DNA probe, monoclonal antibody enzyme immunoassay, and cell culture for the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis.

Authors:  W LeBar; B Herschman; C Jemal; J Pierzchala
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1989-05       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Comparison of buffalo green monkey cells and McCoy cells for isolation of Chlamydia trachomatis in a microtiter system.

Authors:  T Krech; M Bleckmann; R Paatz
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1989-10       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  Detection of C trachomatis in urogenital specimens by polymerase chain reaction.

Authors:  H Näher; H Drzonek; J Wolf; M von Knebel Doeberitz; D Petzoldt
Journal:  Genitourin Med       Date:  1991-06

6.  Is urine leukocyte esterase test a useful screening method to predict Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women?

Authors:  J M Chow; J Moncada; D Brooks; G Bolan; H Shaw; J Schachter
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  Use of blocking reagent to confirm enzyme immunoassay results in chlamydial conjunctivitis.

Authors:  P A Mårdh; A N Elbagir; K Stenberg
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  1990-04       Impact factor: 3.267

Review 8.  Susceptibility testing of Chlamydia trachomatis: from eggs to monoclonal antibodies.

Authors:  J M Ehret; F N Judson
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 5.191

9.  Effect of blind passage and multiple sampling on recovery of Chlamydia trachomatis from urogenital specimens.

Authors:  R B Jones; B P Katz; B van der Pol; V A Caine; B E Batteiger; W J Newhall
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1986-12       Impact factor: 5.948

10.  Comparison of the Syva MicroTrak enzyme immunoassay and Gen-Probe PACE 2 with cell culture for diagnosis of cervical Chlamydia trachomatis infection in a high-prevalence female population.

Authors:  L M Clarke; M F Sierra; B J Daidone; N Lopez; J M Covino; W M McCormack
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 5.948

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.