Biro F M, Reising S F, Doughman J A, Kollar L M, Rosenthal S L
Division of Adolescent Medicine, Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH.
Pediatrics. 1994 Mar;93(3):476-80.
To evaluate the clinical utility of various diagnostic tests, two enzyme immunoassays and a chemiluminescent DNA probe were compared with cell culture (with monoclonal antibody confirmation) for the diagnosis of endocervical Chlamydia trachomatis infection.
The clinical performance of four diagnostic methods for Chlamydia trachomatis urogenital infections were compared, using specimens generated from consecutive pelvic examinations.
Subjects were recruited from an urban adolescent clinic that provides primary and referral care.
A total of 479 adolescent female subjects were enrolled. The order of sample collection was randomized. Subjects were stratified according to whether they were asymptomatic (n = 228) or symptomatic (n = 251).
Discrepant analysis was performed when culture was negative and nonculture technique was positive. The subject was considered to have chlamydia if culture was positive, or if one or more nonculture techniques, with that test's confirmatory assay, were positive (consensus-positive). Prevalence of chlamydia was 11.0% in the asymptomatic, and 20.7% in the symptomatic, group. Overall, 32.5% of the infected subjects were asymptomatic. Sensitivity of diagnostic methods varied from 52% to 80% in the asymptomatic subjects, compared with 65% to 81% in symptomatic subjects. Culture sensitivity was 75% to 80%. The specificities of all tests were 96% or greater. Accuracy of nonculture methods varied from 89.5% (DNA probe, symptomatic subjects) to 96.9% (enzyme immunoassay asymptomatic subjects).
There are significant differences in symptomatic subjects when evaluating accuracy of test outcome, using a consensus-positive criterion. Asymptomatic infections account for nearly one third of adolescent females infected with chlamydia. The prevalence of chlamydia urogenital infections are underestimated by any single diagnostic test, particularly in the asymptomatic patient.
为评估各种诊断检测方法的临床实用性,将两种酶免疫测定法和一种化学发光DNA探针法与细胞培养法(经单克隆抗体确认)用于诊断宫颈沙眼衣原体感染进行比较。
采用连续盆腔检查所获取的标本,比较四种诊断沙眼衣原体泌尿生殖系统感染方法的临床性能。
研究对象来自一家提供初级和转诊护理的城市青少年诊所。
共招募了479名青春期女性受试者。样本采集顺序随机。受试者按无症状(n = 228)或有症状(n = 251)进行分层。
当培养结果为阴性而非培养技术结果为阳性时,进行差异分析。若培养结果为阳性,或一种或多种非培养技术及其确证检测结果为阳性(一致阳性),则该受试者被视为感染沙眼衣原体。无症状组沙眼衣原体感染率为11.0%,有症状组为20.7%。总体而言,32.5%的感染受试者无症状。无症状受试者中诊断方法的敏感性在52%至80%之间,有症状受试者中则为65%至81%。培养敏感性为75%至80%。所有检测方法的特异性均在96%或更高。非培养方法的准确性在89.5%(DNA探针法,有症状受试者)至96.9%(酶免疫测定法,无症状受试者)之间。
采用一致阳性标准评估检测结果准确性时,有症状受试者存在显著差异。无症状感染占感染沙眼衣原体青春期女性的近三分之一。任何单一诊断检测都会低估沙眼衣原体泌尿生殖系统感染的患病率,尤其是在无症状患者中。