Literature DB >> 9399521

Laboratory methods for detection of Chlamydia trachomatis: survey of laboratories in Washington State.

K L Suchland1, J M Counts, W E Stamm.   

Abstract

The last decade has witnessed the development of a wide variety of diagnostic tests for Chlamydia trachomatis. In order to determine what laboratory methods are being used to detect C. trachomatis infections in Washington State and to identify factors influencing test selection, between April 1995 and October 1995 we conducted a mailed questionnaire survey of all 112 laboratories certified to do chlamydia testing. Of these, 20 had discontinued testing for C. trachomatis, and responses were obtained from 89 (97%) of the remaining 92 laboratories. Surprisingly, 38 (43%) of the 89 laboratories used rapid tests such as Clearview and Surecell, making such tests the most commonly used laboratory tests. Laboratories which used rapid tests had lower test volumes, less experience performing tests for C. trachomatis, less frequent attendance at professional meetings, and greater reliance on manufacturers for information compared with laboratories which used other methods. Confirmation of non-culture-positive results was provided by 28 (34%) of the 82 laboratories doing non-culture-based tests. Forty-one (47%) of 88 laboratories reported having compared their method with another method. Test volume was the strongest predictor of laboratories which confirmed positive non-culture-based test results and which had performed a laboratory comparison of methods. We conclude that rapid tests for C. trachomatis are often being used inappropriately and that efforts are needed to improve effective implementation and quality assurance of laboratory testing for C. trachomatis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9399521      PMCID: PMC230149          DOI: 10.1128/jcm.35.12.3210-3214.1997

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


  13 in total

1.  Nonculture tests for genital tract chlamydial infection. What does the package insert mean, and will it mean the same thing tomorrow?

Authors:  J Schachter; W E Stamm; M A Chernesky; E W Hook; R B Jones; F N Judson; J A Kellogg; B LeBar; P A Mårdh; W M McCormack
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  1992 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.830

2.  Tubal factor infertility: an association with prior chlamydial infection and asymptomatic salpingitis.

Authors:  J W Sellors; J B Mahony; M A Chernesky; D J Rath
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 7.329

3.  A 1-year evaluation of Syva MicroTrak Chlamydia enzyme immunoassay with selective confirmation by direct fluorescent-antibody assay in a high-volume laboratory.

Authors:  E L Chan; K Brandt; G B Horsman
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 5.948

4.  Direct fluorescent-antibody confirmation of chlamydial antigen below the detection threshold of the chlamydiazyme enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

Authors:  J A Kellogg; J W Seiple; E S Stroll
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 5.948

5.  Fifteen-month follow-up study of women infected with Chlamydia trachomatis.

Authors:  W M McCormack; S Alpert; D E McComb; R L Nichols; D Z Semine; S H Zinner
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1979-01-18       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Decreased prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis infection associated with a selective screening program in family planning clinics in Wisconsin.

Authors:  D G Addiss; M L Vaughn; D Ludka; J Pfister; J P Davis
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  1993 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.830

7.  Chlamydia trachomatis infections in the United States. What are they costing us?

Authors:  A E Washington; R E Johnson; L L Sanders
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1987-04-17       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Ectopic pregnancy and antibodies to Chlamydia trachomatis.

Authors:  L Svensson; P A Mårdh; M Ahlgren; F Nordenskjöld
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  1985-09       Impact factor: 7.329

9.  Use of cell culture and a rapid diagnostic assay for Chlamydia trachomatis screening.

Authors:  E W Hook; C Spitters; C A Reichart; T M Neumann; T C Quinn
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-09-21       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  Prevention of pelvic inflammatory disease by screening for cervical chlamydial infection.

Authors:  D Scholes; A Stergachis; F E Heidrich; H Andrilla; K K Holmes; W E Stamm
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1996-05-23       Impact factor: 91.245

View more
  2 in total

1.  Evaluation of laboratory testing methods for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in the era of nucleic acid amplification.

Authors:  T J Battle; M R Golden; K L Suchland; J M Counts; J P Hughes; W E Stamm; K K Holmes
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Cross-reactivity between Coxiella burnetii and chlamydiae.

Authors:  M Lukácová; J Melnicáková; J Kazár
Journal:  Folia Microbiol (Praha)       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.099

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.