Suppr超能文献

采用改进的参考标准对女性沙眼衣原体感染进行DNA探针与核酸扩增试验的直接多中心比较。

Head-to-head multicenter comparison of DNA probe and nucleic acid amplification tests for Chlamydia trachomatis infection in women performed with an improved reference standard.

作者信息

Black Carolyn M, Marrazzo Jeanne, Johnson Robert E, Hook Edward W, Jones Robert B, Green Timothy A, Schachter Julius, Stamm Walter E, Bolan Gail, St Louis Michael E, Martin David H

机构信息

National Center for Infectious Diseases, Mailstop C17, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), 1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA.

出版信息

J Clin Microbiol. 2002 Oct;40(10):3757-63. doi: 10.1128/JCM.40.10.3757-3763.2002.

Abstract

Few evaluations of tests for Chlamydia trachomatis have compared nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) with diagnostic tests other than those by culture. In a five-city study of 3,551 women, we compared the results of commercial ligase chain reaction (LCR) and PCR tests performed on cervical swabs and urine with the results of PACE 2 tests performed on cervical swabs, using independent reference standards that included both cervical swabs and urethral swab-urine specimens. Using cervical culture as a standard, the sensitivities of PACE 2, LCR, and PCR tests with cervical specimens were 78.1, 96.9, and 89.9%, respectively, and the specificities were 99.3, 97.5, and 98.2%, respectively. Using either cervical swab or urine LCR-positive tests as the standard decreased sensitivities to 60.8% for PACE 2 and to 75.8 and 74.9% for PCR with cervical swabs and urine, respectively. Specificities increased to 99.7% for PACE 2 and to 99.7 and 99.4% for PCR with cervical swabs and urine, respectively. Sensitivities with a cervical swab-urine PCR standard were 61.9% for PACE 2 and 85.5 and 80.8% for LCR with cervical swabs and urine, respectively. Specificities were 99.6% for PACE 2 and 99.0 and 98.9% for LCR with cervical swabs and urine, respectively. Cervical swab versus urine differences were significant only for PCR specificities (P = 0.034). Overall, LCR sensitivity exceeded that of PCR, and sensitivities obtained with cervical swabs exceeded those obtained with urine specimens by small amounts. These data have substantiated, using a large multicenter sample and a patient standard, that LCR and PCR tests performed on endocervical swabs and urine are superior to PACE 2 tests for screening C. trachomatis infections in women. In our study, NAATs improved the detection of infected women by 17 to 38% compared to PACE 2.

摘要

对沙眼衣原体检测方法的评估中,很少有将核酸扩增检测(NAATs)与除培养法之外的诊断检测方法进行比较的。在一项针对3551名女性的五城市研究中,我们将对宫颈拭子和尿液进行的商业连接酶链反应(LCR)和PCR检测结果,与对宫颈拭子进行的PACE 2检测结果进行了比较,采用了包括宫颈拭子和尿道拭子 - 尿液标本在内的独立参考标准。以宫颈培养作为标准,对宫颈标本进行PACE 2、LCR和PCR检测的敏感性分别为78.1%、96.9%和89.9%,特异性分别为99.3%、97.5%和98.2%。以宫颈拭子或尿液LCR阳性检测结果作为标准时,PACE 2的敏感性降至60.8%,对宫颈拭子和尿液进行PCR检测的敏感性分别降至75.8%和74.9%。PACE 2的特异性增至99.7%,对宫颈拭子和尿液进行PCR检测的特异性分别增至99.7%和99.4%。以宫颈拭子 - 尿液PCR标准进行检测时,PACE 2的敏感性为61.9%,对宫颈拭子和尿液进行LCR检测的敏感性分别为85.5%和80.8%。PACE 2的特异性为99.6%,对宫颈拭子和尿液进行LCR检测的特异性分别为99.0%和98.9%。仅PCR特异性在宫颈拭子与尿液之间存在显著差异(P = 0.034)。总体而言,LCR的敏感性超过PCR,且通过宫颈拭子获得的敏感性略高于通过尿液标本获得的敏感性。这些数据使用大量多中心样本和患者标准证实,对宫颈内拭子和尿液进行的LCR和PCR检测在筛查女性沙眼衣原体感染方面优于PACE 2检测。在我们的研究中,与PACE 2相比,NAATs将感染女性的检测率提高了17%至38%。

相似文献

3
The accuracy and efficacy of screening tests for Chlamydia trachomatis: a systematic review.
J Med Microbiol. 2002 Dec;51(12):1021-1031. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-51-12-1021.
10
Detection of Chlamydia trachomatis infection in urine samples from men and women by ligase chain reaction.
J Clin Microbiol. 1995 Aug;33(8):2042-7. doi: 10.1128/jcm.33.8.2042-2047.1995.

引用本文的文献

2
Fluorescent Biosensor Based on Hairpin DNA Stabilized Copper Nanoclusters for Chlamydia trachomatis Detection.
J Fluoresc. 2022 Sep;32(5):1651-1660. doi: 10.1007/s10895-022-02961-y. Epub 2022 May 25.
4
Diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis genital infections in the era of genomic medicine.
Braz J Microbiol. 2021 Sep;52(3):1327-1339. doi: 10.1007/s42770-021-00533-z. Epub 2021 Jun 23.
7
Estimating age-dependent per-encounter chlamydia trachomatis acquisition risk via a Markov-based state-transition model.
J Clin Bioinforma. 2014 Apr 25;4:7. doi: 10.1186/2043-9113-4-7. eCollection 2014.
9
Genital Chlamydia trachomatis: an update.
Indian J Med Res. 2013 Sep;138(3):303-16.
10
Chlamydia positivity trends among women attending family planning clinics: United States, 2004-2008.
Sex Transm Dis. 2011 Nov;38(11):989-94. doi: 10.1097/OLQ.0b013e318225f7d7.

本文引用的文献

4
Discrepant analysis: how can we test a test?
J Clin Microbiol. 2000 Jun;38(6):2027-9. doi: 10.1128/JCM.38.6.2027-2029.2000.
6
Using a combination of reference tests to assess the accuracy of a new diagnostic test.
Stat Med. 1999 Nov 30;18(22):2987-3003. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19991130)18:22<2987::aid-sim205>3.0.co;2-b.
9
Bias in discrepant analysis: when two wrongs don't make a right.
J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Mar;51(3):219-31. doi: 10.1016/s0895-4356(97)00264-3.
10
Evaluation of bias in diagnostic-test sensitivity and specificity estimates computed by discrepant analysis.
J Clin Microbiol. 1998 Feb;36(2):375-81. doi: 10.1128/JCM.36.2.375-381.1998.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验